H- 


*.f^,^. 


■mm' 


\ 


'.     '  -»^w~i.«(kSu., 


AN    ENQUIRY, 

CONCERNING  THE  LIBERTY, 

AND 

LICENTIOUSNESS  OF  THE  PRESS, 

AND 

THE  UNCONTROULABLE  NATURE 

OF  THE 

HUMAN   MIND: 

CONTAINING 

AIJ  INVESTIGATION  OF  THE  RIGHT  WHICH  GOVERN^ 

MENT  HAVE  TO  CONTROUL  THE  FREE  EXPRES^ 

SION  OF  PUBLIC  OPINION, 

Addressed  to  the  People  of  the  U.  States. 


By  JOHN  THOMSON, 


<*  /  toillsooher  part  with  Lift  itself,  than  with  that  Liberty)  without 
which)  Life  is  not  worth  the  having; — /  twill  sooner  suffer 
my  eyes  to  be  put  out)  than  my  understanding  to  be  extin^ 
guished, 

Milton's  Speech  on  the  unllcenced  Liberty  of  the  Press. 


NEW-YORK: 


Printed  by  Johnson  (ST  Stryker,  No.  29 
Gold-Street y  for  the  Author. 

1801. 

(Copy. Right  Secured.) 


i.s^n 


ADDRESS, 

..\.  TO  THE  PEOPLE  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES. 


mmm 


-i^OR  your  permsal  the  following  sheets  zverc 
written;  therefore  to  you  are  they  addressed.  To 
such  as  may  approve  of  the  principles  contended  fory 
no  defence  is  necessary.  To  such  as  disapprove,  the 
case  is  the  same.  Leaving  the  zvork  then,  to  stand 
or  fall  by  its  own  merits,  this  address  shall  only  state 
the  reasons  of  publication  at  this  time. 

When  the  Alien  and  Sedition  Laws  were  passed  in 
the  summer  of  1798,  it  appeared  to  me,  that  they 
xvere  the  qffspryig  of  terror  and  party  prejudice, 
founded  upon  injustice;  and  calculated  to  create  more 
enemies  than  friends  to  the  government,  I  conceived 
it  the  duty  of  every  man  to  investigate  the  principles 
of  the  Seditio?:  law  in  particular.  At  that  time,  there- 
fore, I  wrote  a  pamphlet  of  about  half  the  size  of  the 
present.  The  Epidemic  ivhich  raged  so  severely  in  the 
Latter  part  of  that  summer,  and  during  the  fall,  pre- 
vented the  publication  at  the  period  intended. 

From  that  time  until  the  last  meeting  of  Congress,' 
the  manuscript  has  lain  past,  without  the  design  of 
publication  being  again  thought  of  Upon  the  Com- 
mittee of  unfinished  business  reporting  their  opinion 
of  the  expedience  of  renewing  the  Sedition  Law,  I 
determined  upon  this  publication.  The  substance, 
and  the  principal  part  of  the  reasonings  are  the  same 
with  the  unpublished  work  just  mentioned;  but  the  ar- 

iviii8i520 


iv  ADDRESS. 

rangement  is  enthely  new,  and  (he  tenor  of  the  rea* 
soning  adapted  to  the  present  time. 

If  the  Sedition  Latv,  and  the  manner  in  zvhich  it 
was  carried  into  execiiiio?i,  has  contributed  in  any 
degree  to  that  change  of  men  and  measures  which  this 
day  takes  place ;  the;  principles  contended  for,  cannot 
he  deemed  improper  at  this  important  period.  If  zve 
have  now  to  congratulate  our  coimtry  upon  the  expi- 
ration of  this  law  s  then  surely  we  ought  to  turn  our 
attention  to  the  subject  of  free  enquiry,  in  order  to 
guard  ourselves  from  being  again  fettered  by  a  mea- 
sure of  that  kind. 

It  is  not  to  be  expected  that  many  7iezv  ideas  can  be 
found  upon  a  subject  of  this,  nature.  Buty  if  the  re  a- 
sbnings  are  just,  still  'they  may  be  of  use  to  Society. 

JOHN  THOMSON 

NezV'York,  March  4:th  1801. 


AN 


ENQUIRY,  &c. 


CHAPTER  I. 

Licentiousness  of  the  Press,  what — By  whom  it  is 
Complained  of , — Difficulty  of  ascertaining  what 
it  is  exemplified, 

M    HE  invention  of  Printing  is  universally  allowed 
to   have   been   of  the   first  importance  to  the  in- 
terests of  mankind.     All  allow  it  to  have  been  a 
blessing;  but  not  a  few  have  been  bold  enough  to 
assert,  that  JiVe  many  other  blessings  it   has  been 
abused:  and  the   licentiousness  of  the  Press,  has, 
by  certain  descriptions  of  men,  been  loudly  com- 
plained  of.     Mankind  have,  however,  differed  in 
opinion  regarding  the  extent,  as  well  as  existance 
of  this  evil.     By  some  it  has  been  asserted,  that  if 
no  checks  were  imposed  upon  the  Press,  its  licenti- 
ousness would  harrow  up  every  root,  and  tear  as- 
sunder  with  savage  fury,  every  bond  of  human  So- 
ciety.    Others  however  have  denied  the  possibility 
of  any  such  formidable  evil,  and  treated  these  conse- 
quences as  mere  chimeras.     Surely  upon  a  subject 
where  opinions  are  so  diametrically  opposite,  a  short 
enquiry  into  the  merit  of  each  cannot  be  deemed 
unimportant. 

It  is  not  a  little  remarkable  that  the  opponents  to 


(     6     ) 

the  Liberty  of  the  Press,  have  always  been  found 
among  the  members  of  Government  interested  in  the 
duration  of  its  abuses,  or  of  those  whose  actions  in 
private  life  will  not  bear  the  scrutinizing  eye  of 
moral  enquiry.  Knowing  that  free  enquiry  w^ould 
to  them  be  extremely  fatal,  they  wished  to  oppose, 
if  possible,  an.  insurmountable  barrier  to  the  progress 
of  thought,  and  stifle  the  expression  of  public  opin- 
ion ',  afraid,  or  ashamed  to  have  their  actions  can- 
vassed by  their  fellow  men,  they  dreaded  appearing 
before  the  bar  of  public  opinion. 

An  individual  who  is  conscious  of  the  rectitude  of 
his  conduct; — who  is  satisfied  of  the  purity  of  his 
motives;  w4io  has  no  other  object  in  view  but  the 
promotion  of  justice,  and  the  consequent  advantage 
of  the  human  race:  such  a  character  can  never  fie 
afraid  of  public  or  private  animadversion.  As  truth 
is  his  sole  aim,  and  as  man  is  so  liable  to  error,  or 
mistake,  he  will  rather  court  than  shun  an  invesiga- 
tion  of  his  motives,  conduct,  and  opinions.  The 
more  public  this  investigation  is,  the  better,  as  he 
will  either  be  corrected  himself,  oi  may  by  his  reply 
correct  those  of  a,  dlfFcrcnt  opinion.  If  attacked  in 
his  private  character,  he  has  nothing  to  fear  from 
the  malignant  shafts  of  envy  or  malice.  In  this 
case,  let  the  accuser  put  his  name  to  the  accusation, 
and  i^  false  y  it  will  be  easily  detected:  li  trn€y  it 
cannot  be  too  soon  known.  The  reasoning  between, 
the  actions  of  individuals  and  governments,  hold 
good  in  a  variety  of  instances;  and  in  none  more 
than  in  this.  The  action^  of  both  ought  to  be  just, 
and  from  investigation  they  have  nothing  to  fear. 
The  virtuous  part  of  the  community  will  always  ral- 
ly around  the  standard  of  truth;  while  the  followers 
of  vice  will  be  few  in  number,  as  well  as  deficient 
in  abilities.  Reasoning  in  this  manner,  I  have  no 
hesitation  in  asserting — that  the  Licentiousness  of 


'(  ?  > 

the  Press,  is  a  term  destitute  of  any  meaning;  or^ 
if  it  ever  exists,  like  anarchy  it  carries  the  seeds  of 
its  immediate  destruction  along  with  it. 

I  have  seen  a  variety  of  attempts  to  define  where- 
in the  Licentiousness  of  the  Press  consists.  As  be- 
fore observed,  they  have  uniformly  proceeded  from 
men  who  evidently  wished  nobody  to  enjoy  the  Li- 
berty of  the  Press,  but  such  as  were  of  their  opinion. 
Why  will  not  these  men  allow  the  same  liberty  to 
others  which  they  claim  for  themselves?  Who  con- 
ferred upon  them  the  authority  to  say  unto  those 
who  differ  from  them  in  opinion  ;  "  Hitherto  shalt 
thou  go  and  no  farther  ^  and  here  shall  the  progress 
of  thy  thoughts  be  stayed."  Nature  never  conferred 
such  a  right;  and  reason,  justice,  and  the  uncon- 
trolable  freedom  of  thought  forbid  it. 

We  laugh  at,  and  ridicule  with  good  reason,  the 
haughty  mandates  of  the  Popes  and  Councils  of  the 
Romish  church,  when  in  the  plenitude  of  their  power 
they  commanded  the  people  to  believe  a  bit  of  half- 
baked  dough  to  be  the  real  body  and  blood  of  the 
Son  of  Ciod;  and  we  behold  with  horror  and  detesta- 
tion the  masacres  anrl  burnings  exercised  by  them 
upon  such  as  would  not  surrender  their  reason  at  the 
shrine  of  blind  superstition,  and  intolerant  folly. 
We  detest  the  Tyranny  of  the  Grand  Seignior  and 
other  eastern  Tyrants,  who  prohibit  printing  alto- 
gether in  their  dominions.  We  pretend  to  view 
with  a  degree  of  commiseration  the  fate  of  those 
European  countries  who  never  enjoyed  the  inesti- 
mable right  of  speaking  and  publishing  their  opin- 
ions; or,  who  once  having  had  this  right,  are  now 
either  totally,  or  almost  altogether  divested  of  it.  If 
then,  thinking  and  feeling  in  this  manner,  we  do 
not  guard  with  the  most  vigilant  care  this  most  im- 
portant right,  we  shall  be  deficient,  not  only  to  our 
own  interest  and  libertv,  but   also  to  that  of  our 


(     8     ) 

posterity;  who  may  when  it  is  too  late,  curse  the 
memories  of  us  their  ancestors.  If  we  allow  our 
terrors  or  prejudices  so  far  to  conquer  our  reason  as 
again  silently  to  acquiesce  in  the  renewal  of  the  Se- 
dition Law;  or  tacitly  give  our  consent  to  any 
abridgment  of  the  Liberty  of  the  Press.  This  is  the 
palladium  of  freedom,  which  if  once  destroyed,  Li- 
ty  is  no  more. 

I  think  I  hear  some  worthy  but  mistaken  indivi- 
duals exclaim,  "  Why  all  this  declamation?  we 
wish  not  to  destroy  the  Liberty  of  the  Press,  we 
only  wish  to  correct  and  suppress  its  licentiousness. 
By  this  the  barriers  of  liberty  will  be  strengthened." 
True,  they  will  be  strengthened,  but  it  will  be  a  for- 
tification from  which  her  sons  will  be  forever  shut 
out;  unless  they  storm  it  at  the  expence  of  oceans 
of  human  blood. 

"  All  Nature's  difference,  is  all  Nature's  peace.'* 

And  as  in  the  natural,  so  in  the  moral  world.  Vain 
would  be  the  task  of  him  who  should  attempt  to 
make  all  mankind  of  one  opinion.  AVhy  then  dare 
to  attempt  a  thing  which  God  has  thought  fit  to  ren- 
der impossible?  Wc  wish  no  such  thing,  many 
will  reply,  but  there  are  some  opinions  the  publica- 
tion of  which,  would  be  dangerous  to  the  peace  and 
good  order  of  society,  therefore  it  must  be  prohibit- 
ed. This  is  the  licentiousness  of  the  Press;  and  this 
prohibition  is  consistent  with  its  real  liberty.  Well, 
allow  it.  But  where  are  the  criterions  by  which  you 
are  to  define  this  licentiousness  of  the  Press?  Pro- 
duce those  universal  and  infallible  rules  by  which 
we  may  always  know  this  dangerous  evil,  an  evil 
fraught  with  such  a  horrid  train  of  consequences. 
Let  us  make  an  appeal  to  the  opinions  of  mankind 
in  various  nations.  Let  us  see  how  they  agree  in 
their  definitions';  and  we  shall  find  them  as  different 
as  their  ipanners,  customs,  and  languages. 


{      9       ) 

Ask  a  native  of  the  British  dominions  what  Is  the 
licentiousness  of  the  press?  He  will  tell  you  (if  he 
answers  with  candor)  it  is  scrutinizing  the  actions  of 
government,  daring  to  speak  differently  from  those 
in  administration,  presuming  to  say  a  reform  in 
Parliament  is  necessary,  that  a  republican  govern- 
ment is  preferable  to  a  monarchical ;  or,  having  the 
still  greater  temerity  to  say,  that  the  king  can,  may, 
or  has  done  wTong. 

Request  a  French  Republican  to  inform  you  what 
are  his  ideas  upon  the  subject  ?  He  will  reply,  it  is 
advocating  the  cause  of  royalty  and  aristocracy  -, 
preaching  up  federalism;  daring  to  call  Buonaparte 
an  usurper,  or  the  government  (what  it  really  is)  a 
military  despotism. 

Desire  a  Spaniard  or  Portuguese  to  answer  the 
same  question ;  They  will  tell  you  it  is  presuming  to 
say  any  thing  against  the  king,  nobility,  clergy,  or 
any  who  are  in  authority;  daring  to  express  your 
opinions  upon  religious  matters  in  public,  if  they 
differ  from  holy  pfeother  church  ! 

Enquire  of  a  Mussulman,  he  will  tell  yoii  there  Is 
no  5uch  thing  as  opinion  to  be  exercised,  except  by 
the  Grand  Seignior  or  Mufti ;  that  all  things  are 
predestinated  in  the  book  of  fate,  and  it  is  the  duty 
of  the  followers  of  the  great  prophet  to  adore  in 
•silence,  and  bow  down  to  the  mortal  who  sends  a 
mute  with  a  bow  string  to  strangle  whomsoever  he 
pleaseth. 

Lastly. — Ask  an  Aborigine  of  this  country  to  give 
you  his  opinion  concerning  speech  and-  thought. 
If  he  comprehends  your  meaning,  he  will  tell  you 
to  think  what  you  please,  and  speak  what  you  think. 

Which  of  these  would  you  choose  to  be  regulated 
by  in  your  correcting  the  licentiousness  of  the  press? 
I  believe  you  neither  would  take  the  Spaniard,  Por- 
tuguese nor  Turk.     The  inquisition  of  the  ,/irsl,  and 

B 


(      10     ) 

the  bow  string  of  the  last,  would  soon  convince  you 
of  the  error  of  your  choice.  If  you  be  a  good  Re- 
publican, you  will  hardly  admire  the  British  doctrine 
of  royal  infallibility,  or  the  justice  of  about  a  fortieth 
part  of  the  people  only  being  represented  in  the 
Legislature;  while  the  majority  must  submit  to  laws 
they  never  consented  to  :  If  they  express  their  opi- 
nions of  such  an  absurdity,  and  endeavour  to  get 
the  evil  remedied,  they  must  run  the  risk  of  minis- 
terial vengeance  -,  of  being  hanged,  xirawn  and 
quartered;  or  taking  a  voyage  to  Botany  Bay,  in 
company  with  convicts  of  the  most  abandoned  cha- 
racters. Will  yon  not,  if  you  are  a  man  of  candour, 
rather  approve  of  the  opinion  of  the  ^^  untutored 
Indian."  Is  it  not  founded  upon  justice,  and 
the  nature  of  man?  "  Yes,  but  we  must  not 
allovv  any  publication  to  be  circulated,  or  opinions 
promulgated,  which  may  tend  to  alineate  the  affec- 
tions of  the  people  from  the  government  of  their 
own  choice.  A  liberty  such  as  this,  can  never  be 
allowed  In  any  government."  Let  us  then  investi- 
gate this  opinion  with  that  freedom  with  which  free 
men  should  5  and  that  temper  which  an  enquiry 
after  truth  deserves.  Open  to  conviction,  and  hav- 
ing no  end  to  gain  but  the  advancement  of  justice 
and  truth,  I  shall  not  shrink  from  an  Investigation 
of  my  opinion.  If  instead  of  the  weapons  of  reason, 
the  force  of  authority  be  made  use  of  against  me, 
I  must,  like  the  Turk,  submit  (though  not  with 
silence)  for  such  a  mode  of  argumentation  is  not  the 
most  likely  to  convince. 


(      H      ) 


CHAP.  IL 

Liberty  of  the  Press,  what. — Enquiry  concerning  ili^ 
jiatiire  of  thought, — Objection  stated  and  answered, 
— Omnipotence  of  inind. — Uncontroulable  in  its 
nature. 

I^EEING  the  task  is  so  difficult  to  ascertain  what 
the  Licentiousness  of  the  Press  is,  let  us  proceed  in 
our  enquiry  concerning  its  liberty.  I  have  often 
heard  that  definitions  upon  abstract  principles  were 
both  difficult  and  dangerous.  Difficult,  because  as 
they  do  not  in  their  nature  admit  of  occular  mathe- 
matical demonstration;  therefore,  they  never  can  be 
proved  in  such  a  manner  as  to  acquire  universal 
consent.  Dangt^rous,  because  if  not  radically  right, 
they  may  be  apt  to  mislead  numbers  of  those  who 
are  incapable  of  understanding  abstract  reasoning; 
and  therefore,  taking  thera  upon  trust,  look  upoa 
them  as  incontrovertable.  Notwithstanding  these 
difficulties,  I  shall  here  attempt  a  definition  of  what 
I  mean  by  the  liberty  of  the  press;  simplified  in  such 
a  manner  as  to  be  easily  understood.  The  definition 
is  this  : 

All  men  are  endowed,  by  nature,  w^ith  the  power 
of  thinking  ;  yet  have  they  no  controul  over  their 
thoughts.  As  no  individual  can  prevent  the  opera- 
tion of  this  principle  within  himself,  much  less  can 
he  direct  those  of  any  other  person.  If  this  is  the 
case  with  one  individual,  it  must  be  so  with  all ; 
therefore,  no  association  of  men,  however  nume- 
rous or  respectable,  can  ever  have  a  right  to  say  you 
shall  not  think  this,  or  you  shall  think  that :  this  be- 
ing a  power  which  does  not  exist  among  mankind. 
Consequently  it  must  follow,  that  men  should  be  al- 
lowed to   express  those   thoughts,  with  the  same 


(      12     ) 

freedom  that  they  arise.  In  other  words — speak,  or 
publish,  whatever  you  believe  to  be  truth. 

Let  us  now  examine  the  subject  agreeable  to  this 
definition. 

Man,  when  he  comes  into  the  world,  is  not  con- 
scious of  his  own  existence.  Mind  he  has  not;  or 
if  he  has,  it  is  of  no  use  to  him.  It  is  a  total  blank. 
Destitute  of  thought  or  ideas,  he  will  grasp  at  a 
thing  that  may  be  hurtful  to  him,  with  the  same 
eagerness  as  at  that  which  will  give  him  pleasure. 
Man  then,  must  be  the  creature  of  education.  His 
mind  is  like  a  sheet  of  blank  paper,  upon  which 
yoii  may  write  whatever  you  please.  Now  as  thought 
is  nothing  more  than  the  operations  of  the  muidy 
it  must  at  first  be  excited  by  outward  objects.  These 
iirst  efforts  of  the  mind,  are,  however,  extremely  im- 
perfect ;  nor  is  it  for  a  considerable  time  that  they 
acquire  a  regular  form.  As  the  child  advances, 
every  object  around  him  is  new;  and  he  begins  to 
distinguish  between  what  gives  him  pleasure,  and 
that  which  occasions  pain.  The  mind  thus  set  in 
motion,  continues  its  operations;  and  as  the  objects 
are  still  encreasing  in  number,  so  in  proportion  does 
his  ideas  expand.  He  begins  to  compare  and 
combine,  but  is  frequently  mistaken  in  his 
conclusions,  and  is  compelled  to  resort  to  those  who 
are  older,  for  assistance.  He  probably  receives  the 
advice  and  instruction  of  his  elders  at  first,  without 
examination,  believing  them  to  be  true.  If,  how- 
ever, he  should  find  that  his  tutors  have  been 
mistaken,  and  that  they  told  him  something  which 
he  found  not  to  be  true,  a  more  minute  examination 
takes  place,  and  he  receives  with  greater  caution 
any  information  in  a  similar  manner.  Hence  chil- 
dren ought  always  to  be  told  the  truth  ;  for,  if  they 
find  themselves  deceived,  their  education  is  injured^ 


(     IS     ) 

and  their  moral  principles  may  receive  a  dangerous 
contamination. 

Thus  the  human  mind  progresses;  but  though  this 
be  its  general  progress,  yet  there  are  a  variety  of 
circumstances  always  occur  to  prove,  that  even^n 
this  early  stage  of  life,  the  mind  of  man  is  of  that 
subtile  nature,  as  not  to  be  under  human  controul. 

One  child  prefers  a  drum,  his  brother  prefers 
something  else.  Neither  of  them  are  capable  of 
assigning  at  this  age  any  other  reason,  than  that  it 
pleases  them.  As  they  advance  in  life,  they  adopt 
different  opinions;  and  this  they  can  no  more  help, 
than  they  could  preferring  different  play  things. 

Nevertheless,  it  is  chiefly  education  which  deter- 
mines the  human  character;  and  perhaps  this 
difference  in  the  opinions  of  childhood,  might  be 
traced  to  this  origin,  were  we  sufficiently  acquainted 
with  all  the  previous  circumstances  thereupon  atten- 
dant. In  either  case,  it  will  eq ually  serve  to  illustrate 
the  subject  of  our  present  enquiry,  because  it  shews 
the  natural  propensity  of  mankind  to  differ  in 
opinion.  So  much  may  serve  to  shew  the  first 
operations  of  the  human  mind.  Let  us  now  examine 
the  second  article  of  the  definition,  viz.  That  man 
has  no  controul  over  his  oxvn  thoughts. 

From  comparing  this  with  the  first  part  of  the 
definition,  it  has  a  paradoxical  appearance.  Per- 
haps, however,  it  may  upon  examination  be  found 
true. 

All  the  actions  of  men  proceed  from  the  operations 
of  the  mind.  Pleasure  and  pain  are  the  immediate 
determining  motives.  A  boy  is  told  by  his  father 
that  he  must  not  eat  any  unripe  fruit,  because  it  will 
injure  his  health.  He  has,  however,  frequently  seen 
other  children  eat  of  it;  and  he  has  not  been  able 
to  perceive  that  it  hurt  them;  or,  if  he  has,  he  has 
seen  others  that  it  did  not  hurt.     In  either  case,  if 


{  14  ) 

the  acid  taste  of  this  fruit  should  be  agreeable  to  his 
palate,  he  will  in  all  probability  eat  it  if  he  can  get 
it.  What  determines  him  in  this  case?  It  is  because 
the  idea  of  pleasure^  predominates  over  the  idea  of 
paiji;  and  that  for  this  reason,  the  pleasure  is  imme- 
diate,  the  pain  is  to  come ;  and  he  conceives  there  is 
a  chance  of  avoiding  it.  If  his  determination  is 
opposite,  then  the  idea  of  pain,  predominates  over 
that  of  pleasure.  In  either  case,  though  his  mind 
be  the  active  agent;  it  is  purely  passive  with  regard 
to  the  final  determination.  That  is,  whatever  for 
the  time  being  is  most  predominant,  will  determine 
the  mind  for  or  against  the  action. 

The  case  is  the  same  throughout  every  stage  of 
our  existence.  A  proposition  is  proposed  to  two 
men  ;  they  view  it  in  opposite  lights  ;  their  determi- 
nations are  diametrically  the  reverse  of  each  other, 
yet  each  beHeves  his  own  to  be  most  agreeable  to 
reason.  This  arises  entirely  from  the  different  point 
of  view  in  w^hich  it  appears  to  them.  And,  it  follows 
of  course,  that  neither  party  has  any  controul  over 
his  own  thought;  on  the  contrary,  it  is  his  thought 
which  controuls  him. 

Reasoning  upon  this  theory  of  the  human  mind, 
a  very  slight  examination  of  the  subject  will  serve 
to  establish  my  proposion. 

It  has  been  observed  by  some  philosophers,  that 
310  two  objects  in  nature,  were  ever,  or  can  be 
exactly  alike.  Whether  this  be  really  the  case  or 
not,  I  shall  not  at  this  time  enquire.  Upon  the 
foregoing  grounds,  however,  I  will  venture  to 
affirm — that  no.  object  whatever,  whether  mental, 
or  corporeal;  ever  did,  or  can  appear  in  the  exact 
same  point  of  view,  to  any  two  individuals.  In  a 
variety  of  cases,  both  may  agree  in  their  general 
approbation,  or  disapprobation ;  but  if  their  motives 
are  thoroughly  examined,  they  will  in  some  shape 


(     15     ) 

or  other  be  found  to  differ',  notwithstanding  their 
final  conclusion  may  agree.  Hence  arises  that  vast 
variety  of  opinions  v^hich  exist  in  the  world  upon 
every  art  and  science,  as  well  as  upon  the  actions 
of  mankind,  whether  public  or  private.  Were  the 
case  otherwise,  we  should  see  mankind  agreeing  in 
every  opinion  ^  and  no  sooner  should  a  new  idea  be 
started  upon  any  subject,  than  its  truth  would  be 
universally  acknowledged,  or  its  falsehood  immedi- 
ately detected.  But  is  this  the  case  ?  On  the  con- 
trary. Is  not  the  very  reverse  true  ?  Men  of  science 
have  differed,  and  still  differ  in  many  of  their 
opinions;  and  it  is  to  this  very  difference,  that  man- 
kind are  indebted  for  those  discussions  which  have 
from  time  to  time  agitated  the  scientific  world,  and 
to  which  are  justly  to  be  ascribed,  the  gratitude  of 
mankind  for  the  superlative  scientific  advantages 
they  now  enjoy.  No  danger  is  ever  apprehended 
from  discussions  of  this  kind;  and  if  the  same 
unrestrained  freedom  were  permitted  in  poHtical 
and  all  other  investigations,  the  same  beneficial 
effects  would  follow.  If  all  political  opinions,  and 
discussions  upon  those  opinions  had  been  thus 
viewed,  then  neither  sedition  nor  alien  laws  would 
ever  have  disgraced  the  American  code. 

Government  then  ought  no  more  to  interfere  with 
the  discussion  of  politics,  than  with  that  of  any  other 
art  or  science.  Were  this  maxim  adopted,  all  such 
discussions  would  be  equally  harmless.  As  man 
individually  has  no  controul  over  his  own  mind,  so 
it  must  follow  of.  course,  that  he  never  could  have 
delegated  that  to  a  government,  which  he  did  not 
himself  posses.  As  well  might  I  say  to  my  neigh- 
bour, I  will  give  you  a  million  of  dollars,  when  I 
have  not  a  cent  in  the  world.  It  is  like  the  poor 
maniac  in  bedlam,  who  believing  himself  to  be  the 
Pope,  granted  pardons  and  indulgencies  -,  and  gave 


(      16     ) 

away  empires,  kingdoms  and  provinces  every  day, 
while  he  himself  was  confined  to  a  cell  and  straw 
with  bread  and  water. 

But  who  are  the  government  ?  Are  they  not  men  like 
ourselves,  subject  to  the  same  passions,  liable  to  the 
same  errors,  and  whose  minds  must  j^o  through  all 
the  mechanical  progress  of  our  own  r  If  then  they 
are  not  in  this  respect  superior  to  their  fellow  men; 
and  if  their  constituents  possess  no  power  over  their 
own  individual  mind ;  if  they  of  course  cannot  give 
that  power  to  the  members  of  government;  by 
what  right  moral  or  divine,  abstract,  or  pofitive, 
can  government  exert  such  a  power  over  their  fellow 
citizens  ?  Surely  that  government  which  imposes,  or 
attempts  to  impose,  restrictions  upon  the  expressioa 
of  sentiment,  or  interferes  in  the  direction  of  opi- 
nion ;  such  men  exercise  a  power  they  nevet 
received,  and  which  from  the  nature  of  things  they 
never  could  receive.  They  attempt  to  exert  an 
authority  over  the  minds  of  the  community,  and  yet 
they  posses  no  such  power  over  their  own. 

An  objection  may  be  stated  against  part  of  this 
reasoning,  vyhich  to  some  may  appear  unanswerable. 
It  is  this  :  **  You  say  that  man  cannot  give  a  power 
to  government,  which  they  do  not  individually  pos- 
sess. No  man  is  endowed  with  sufficient  power  to 
repell  all  the  aggressions  to  which  he  may  be  exposed 
from  those  who  are  stronger  in  body,  but  less  honest 
in  principle;  therefore,  man  not  possessing  individu- 
ally any  such  power,  they  cannot  delegate  that 
power  to  government." 

In  answer  to  this  objection,  it  may  be  replied,  that 
the  two  cases  are  by  no  means  similar.  All  power 
which  is  delegated  to  government,  is  upon  the  princi- 
ple of  uniting  the  force  of  the  society  in  one  common 
centre,  for  the  mutual  benefit  of  the  whole,  and  to 
protect  the  strong  from  tyrannyzing  over  the  weak. 


(     17     ) 

It  Is  also  empowered  to  call  forth  the  united  energies 
of  the  people,  in  case  of  foreign  invasion.  Now  we 
all  know,  that  no  single  individual  of  the  commu- 
nity can  do  any  of  those  things  himself;  nevertheless, 
the  united  delegation  of  the  people  can.  It  is  only 
concentrating  a  force  which  they  mutually  possess, 
that  it  may  be  exerted  so  as  to  answer  the  end  pro- 
posed. But  in  the  case  of  public  opinion,  or  any 
attempt-  over  the  mind  of  man,  the  means  never 
could  be  sufficient  to  answer  the  end. 

Suppose  that  a  majority  of  the  people  of  all  the 
•states  of  the  union  should  agree  to  confer  the  right, 
or  power,  upon  the  Federal  Government  of  calling 
themselves  omnipotent  and  infallible.     SuppOvSe  also, 
that  along  with  this,  they  were  told  they  should  pass 
a  law  making  it  death  for  any  person  in  the  United 
States  to  think  otherwise.     Could  such  a  law  ever  an- 
swer the  end  ?   No.   For  though  it  might  shut  the 
mouths  of  the  remaining  part  of  the  people,  and  stop 
their  pens  upon  the  subject,  it  is  altogether  impossi- 
ble they  ever  could  believe  it.     The  human  mind 
would  still  continue  its  operations.   It  would  compare 
and  combine  facts  and  circumstances.  It  would  invo- 
luntarily approve  or  disapprove  of  every  act  of  the 
government,   and  though  prevented  from  publishing 
its  opinions,  would  still  believe  a  spade  to  be  a  spade, 
and  the  Federal   Government  to  be  composed  of 
men,    of  men  who  in  accepting  such   titles,   wxre 
guilty  of  impiety  unequaled,    but  by  that  part  of 
the  community  who  conferred  them.     Allow  me 
to  add,  such  is  the  omnipotence  and  uncontroulable 
nature  of  mind,  that  no  power  less  than  OMNI- 
POTENCE itself,  is  competent  to  the  task  of  guiding 
or  directing  it.     It  is  uncontroulable  by  all  but  HIM 
who  made  it  what  it  is.  \ 

The  omnipotence  of  mind  may  seem  to  contradici 
that  part  of  my  definition,  which  says,  that  man  ha< 

C 


(     18     1 

no  controul  over  his  own  thoughts.  This  however  is 
one  of  the  reasons  of  its  omnipotence.  It  is  likewise 
so  upon  other  accounts.  A  man  wherever  he  is,  can, 
by  an  exertion  of  his  mind,  be  transported  in  idea 
to  the  most  distant  part  of  the  globe; — to  the 
utmost  limits  of  the  universe ; — nay,  to  the  empy- 
rean itself.  He  can  by  the  mere  fiat  of  this  mighty 
power  not  only  recall  from  the  dead  his  most  inti- 
mate friends,  but  he  can  converse  as  it  were  with 
those  who  lived  thousands  of  years  before  himself 
had  an  existance.  He  can  by  the  operations  of  his  mind 
recall  the  days  of  old,  and  the  occurrences  of  other 
times.  The  mind  reviews  the  horrors  and  misfor- 
tunes that  it  has  experienced,  and  it  suiters  again. 
The  mind  recals  the  pleasures  that  are  past,  and 
glows  with  renovated  joy.  The  mind  surveys  the 
past,  and  anticipates  the  future,  and  feels  the  alter- 
nate agitations  of  hope  and  fear.  In  all  these,  mind 
is  omnipotent;  in  all  these,  mind  is  uncontroulable. 
As  well  might  government  enact  a  law  prohibiting 
mans  mind  from  these  operations,  as  from  any  other. 
As  vain  would  be  the  task  as  to  attempt  to  confine 
the  lion  with  the  spider's  web.  As  xvise  as  the 
scheme  of  the  m.en  of  Gotham,  who,  in  order  to 
confine  a  Cuckow,  planted  a  hedge  round  their 
town. 


CHAP.  III. 


Fi^ee  discussion, — Hoivviezved by  thefratners  of  fhc 
Federal  Constitution. — Objections  to  the  foregoing 
reasoning  stated  and  answered. —Sedition  haw  in 
the  hands  of  government  like  Jupiters  thunder. 

XFsuch  be  the  construction  of  the  human  mind; 
if  such  is  its   uncontroulable   nature  even  to  the 


(     19     ) 

individual  himself,  the  absurdity  of  others  directing 
its  operations  will  doubtless  be  admitted  :  -Oovern- 
ments  can  then  have  no  such  right,  if  they  had  it, 
it  would  be  extremely  injurious  to  their  interests  ; 
for,  if  it  be  admitted  that  free  discussion  has  been 
of  advantage  to  other  sciences ;  then  why  may  it 
not  be  of  equal  advantage  to  the  science  of  politics? 
The  most  violent  advocate  for  the  sedition  law  will 
surely  acknowledge,  that  had  it  not  been  for  discus- 
smi,  these  States  had  never  been  in  a  situation  to 
have  asserted  and  gained  their  independence.  H.ad 
it  not  been  for  discussion,  the  Federal  Government 
never  would  have  existed.  Certain  it  is,  that  the 
convention  who  framed  this  instrument,  either  were, 
or  appeared  to  be,  fully  impressed  with  the  impor- 
tance of  unrestrained  discussion. 

In  the  first  article,  and  sixth  section  of  the  con- 
stitution are  these  words : — "  And  for  any  speech  or 
debate  in  either  house  they  shall  not  be  questioned  in 
tiny  other  place,'*  Thus  have  our  Legislators  secured 
to  themselves  the  right  of  free  discussion  in  their 
legislative  capacities,  and  the  people  of  the  United 
States  have  guarrantee'd  this  right  by  their  accep- 
tance of  the  Constitution.  If  then  those  men  are  at 
liberty  to  say  what  they  please  in  Congress,  why 
should  they  abridge  this  right  in  the  people.?  By 
what  principle  of  justice  or  equity  is  it  that  the  people 
ought  to  submit  to  such  restrictions  as  have  been 
imposed  upon  them  by  the  late  Sedition  law?  Why 
should  they  who  are  the  servants  or  agents  of  the 
people ;  who  are  paid  by  the  people  for  their  servi- 
ces, why  ought  they  to  impose  restrictions  upon  the 
thoughts,  words,  or  writings  of  their  sovreign.?  laat 
power  who  has  created  them,  and  can  by  a  fiat  of 
its  will,  reduce  them  again  to  tlie  level  of  private  ci- 
tizens. If  free  discussion  be  advantageous  to  them, 
it  must  be  equally  so  to  the  people.     Without  this 


(     20     ) 

Tight  being  exercised  in  the  unlimitted  manner  se- 
cured by  the  Constitution,  the  two  houses  of  Con- 
gress could  not  exercise  the  functions  of  a  Legisla- 
tive body;  and  without  it  is  enjoyed  by  the  people 
in  the  same  way,  ignorance  and  despotism  would 
soon  be  the  inevitable  consequence.  For,  if  it  be 
necessary  for  the  one,  it  is  equally  necessary  for 
both.  The  words  of  the  Constitution  before  quoted, 
proves  this  position.  It  is  founded  upon-  the  very 
natural  and  just  supposition,  that  among  such  a 
number  of  individuals,  a  great  variety  of  opposite 
opinions  must  occur.  It  also  presupposes  that  the 
people  w^ould  pass  their  judgment  upon  the  proceed- 
ings of  Congress.  As  in  passing  judgment  upon 
what  they  said  in  the  course  of  debate,  something 
might  occur  tending  to  displease  either  states  or  indi- 
viduals, it  was  proper  to  guard  the  members  of 
Congress  against  any  other  judgment  than  that  of 
reason,  and  public  opinion.  If  such  be  the  neces- 
sity of  the  case  to  the  government,  (as  before  observ- 
ed,) it  is  equally  so  to  the  people ;  and  it '  is  a  fair 
deduction  to  suppose  it  was  contemplated  that  the 
same  right  of  free  discussion  should  be  guarrantee'd 
to  the  people,  in  as  much  as  it  is  expressly  said  in 
the  twelfth  article  of  the  amendments  to  the  Consti- 
tution, that  "  The  powers  not  delegated  to  the 
United  States  by  the  Constitution,  nor  prohibited 
by  it  to  the  States,  are  reserved  to  the  States  respec- 
tively, or  to  the  people."  No  article  of  the  Consti- 
tution ever  abridged  this  right  in  the  people,  and  so 
far  from  being  delegated,  it  is  expressly  secured  to 
them  by  the  third  article  of  the  amendments. 

I  am  aware  that  part,  if  not  the  whole  of  the 
above  reasoning  may  be  controverted,  and  a  con- 
clusion directly  opposite  may  be  attempted  to  be 
drawn.  It  may  be  said,  and  it  has  beeil  said,  that 
this  very  clause  in  the  Constitution  was  intended  to 


(     21      ) 

protect  members  of  Congress  from  all  animadver- 
sions upon  their  conduct,  through  the  medium 
of  either  speech  or  press.  The  days  of  terror  to  the 
honest  republican  it  is  hoped  now  are  past ;  and 
political  delusion  is  near  its  end.  Such  an  argu- 
ment will  never  be  made  use  of  by  any,  except 
those  who  may  prefer  sophistry  to  reason.  It  is 
evident  both  from  the  zvor^ds  and  spirit  of  the 
constitution,  that  the  members  should  not  be  pro- 
secuted before  any  court  or  tribunal  for  an  opinion 
delivered  in  the  course  of  debate.  It  never  could 
mean  that  the  people  in  their  individual  capacity 
were  not  to  exercise  their  judgment ;  neither  could 
it  have  been  intended  to  prevent  the  free  operation 
of  that  judgment  either  by  speech  or  press.  The 
article  in  the  amendments  to  the  Constitution,  which 
was  intended  to  secure  the  Liberty  of  Speech  and 
Press,  shews  it  was  understood  in  this  way,  by 
Congress  themselves,  as  well  as  by  the  State  Le- 
gislatures who  ratified  those  articles.  Even  the 
British  Parliament,  who  claim  the  proud  title  of  om- 
nipotence, never  claimed  an  exemption  of  this  kind 
from  public  censure.  Pit,  Dundass,  and  all  the  other 
members  of  the  British  administration,  daily  see 
their  actions  and  speeches  animadverted  upon  with 
great  freedom,  and  sometimes  even  with  severity. 

Government  is  ostensibly  for  the  benefit  of  the 
governed ;  not  of  the  governors.  That  the  reverse 
has  often  been  true,  does  not  overthrow  the  truth 
of  the  general  position.  The  government  of  the 
United  States  is  founded  upon  the  acknowledge- 
ment of  the  people,  being  the  sole,  and  only  foun- 
tain from  which  all  their  power  and  authority  are 
derived.  It  is  the  creature  of  the  people ;  the  peo- 
ple are  not  the  creatures  of  its  will.  The  Executive 
and  Legislative,  both  are  from  the  same  source.  If 
so,  is  it  not  then  absurd  in  this  government  to  say 


(     22     )       . 

unto  the  people — "  You  shall  not  think  this,  or  that 
upon  certain  subjects;  or  if  you  do,  it  is  at  your  pe- 
ril. We  shall  certainly  punish  you  for  such  conduct. 
It  is  true,  the  freedom  of  Speech  and  Liberty  of  the 
Press  are  secured  to  you  by  the  Constitution,  but  it 
is  us,  who  are  to  determine  how  far  this  is  to  be  ex- 
ercised. If  we  find  you  too  bold  in  your  language, 
or  too  free  in  your  enquiries  concerning  our  conduct, 
we  will  shew  you  that  we  have  power^  and  it  shall 
be  exerted. 

In  any  government  which  pretends  te  be  actuat- 
ed by  the  principles  of  justice  or  hberty,  such  lan- 
guage would  be  absurd.  What  then  shall  we  say 
of  the  government  of  the  United  States;  that  go- 
vernment which  owes  its  origin  and  its  existence  to 
the  voice  of  the  people,  if  such  language  is  made 
use  of  by  them  ?  What  is  the  amount  of  the  late  Se- 
dition law.'*  It  is  this.  "  You  citizens  6f  the  Unit- 
ed States,  shall  believe  that  all  we  do  is  right;  if 
not,  you  shall  be  fined,  and  imprisoned.  Your 
understanding  we  despise;  argument  we  will  not 
bestow  upon  you;  coercion  shall  convince  you." 
This  is  surely  the  language  of  despotism,  not  of  rea- 
son. A  government  fenced  round  with  penal  codes, 
and  Sedition  laws,  must  surely  repose  but  little  con- 
fidence in  their  own  claims  to  the  approbation  of 
their  fellow-citizens.  It  is  like  the  countryman  and 
Jupiter  in  die  fable,  as  related  by  Lucian.  These 
met  upon  the  road,  and  entered  into  a  conversation 
upon  the  subject  of  heaven  and  earth.  Jupiter  as- 
serted a  variety  of  ciicumstances  concerning  these, 
which  the  countryman  doubted,  and  demanded  some 
reasons  and  proofs,  before  giving  hisasscent  to  them. 
This  Jupiter  refused  to  give,  and  flew  into  a  violent 
passion,  threatening  him  with  his  thiLnde7\  "  Ah  ! 
ha!"  says  the  countryman,  "  now  Jupiter,  I  know 


(     23     ) 

you  are  wrong,  you  are  always  ivro?ig  when  you  ap- 
peal to  your  thunder.'^ 

May  we  not  apply  this  to  every  government  who 
attempts  to  enforce  respect  from  any  other  source, 
than  the  involuntary  applause  which  virtue  and  rec- 
titude alway  can  command?  This  approbation  a 
virtuous  people  will  at  all  times  willingly  bestow, 
and  a  virtuous  government  will  be  fully  satisfied  with 
receiving. 


CHAP.  IV. 

Four  propositions  stated  ajid  examined. — Nature  and 
design  of  Constitutions. — Their  obligations 
upon  the  government. — Opinion  of  Dean  Sxvijt  up- 
on this  sid)ject. — Of  Camillus. — Deductions  from 
those  reasonings. 


T 


HE  absurdity  of  government  attempting  to  en- 
force approbation,  or  to  silence  animadversion,  will 
perhaps,  appear  more  forcibly  by  the  statement,  and 
examination  of  the  four  following  propositions. 

1st.  Either  the  government  are  appinted  by  the 
people,  or  they  are  not. 

2d.  Either  the  government  are  bound  by  those 
rules  the  people  have  prescribed,  whether  by  xvrit- 
ien  Constitutions y  or  by  long  established  customs, 
or  they  are  not. 

3d.  Either  the  administrators  of  government  are 
bound  by  the  rules  of  Eternal  justice,  in  their  pub- 
lic, as  well  as  private  capacities,  or  they  are  not. 

4th.  Governments  are  either  the  servants  of  the 
people,  or  they  are  their  masters. 

Let  us  shortly  consider  and  examine  each  of  these 
propositions  in  order. 


(     24     ) 

And  first.  That  the  government  of  the  United 
States  was  appointed  by  the  people,  is  an  uncontro- 
vertible fact.  The  natural  deduction  from  this  is, 
that  being  so  appointed,  they  never  could  receive 
an  authority  for  exercising  any  powder,  which  the 
people  do  not  aggregatly  themselves  posses.  Con- 
sequently, as  has  been  before  observed,  the  people 
not  being  in'  possesion  of  any  controuling  power 
over  their  own  thoughts,  never  could  have  delegated 
that  which  they  themselves  did  not,  could  not 
have. 

The  only  question  then  is  this  :  Is,  or  was,  the 
Sedition  Law  an  attempt  to  controul  public  opinion, 
and  prevent  its  free  operation  ?  If  it  was  not,  then 
government  have  not  acted  upon  any  unconstitu- 
tional grounds;  but  if  it  was,  then  was  it  in  contra- 
diction to  an  express  article  of  that  Constitution. 

Second.  Either  the  government  are  hound  by  those 
rules  the  people  have  prescribed;  whether  by  writ- 
ten Constitutions,  or  long  establish ed  customs, 
or  they  are  not. 

All  governments  which  have  existed,  have  pre- 
tended to  be  guided  by  certain  primary  rules  or  cus- 
toms. The  Federal  Government  is  bound  by  a 
WRITTEN  CONSTITUTION,  one  of  the  articles 
of  which  is  in  these  words  :  "  Congress  shall  mak^ 
no  law  respecting  an  establishment  of  religion,  or 
prohibiting  tJie  free  exercise  thereof,  or  abridging 
the  freedom  of  speech,  or  of  the  PRESS, 
or  the  right  of  the  people  peaceq^bly  to  assemble,  and 
to  petition  the  governmentfor  a  redress  of  grievances'^ 
Article  3d  of  the  amendment  to  the  Constitution  of 
the  United  States. 

I  have  quoted  the  whole  of  this  article,  in  order 
to  shew  it  as  it  is  ;  it  is  however  only  a  part  of  it 
which  is  necessary  to  be  appealed  to  in  the  fol- 
lowing reasoning. 


(     25     ) 

Tlie  first  thing  here  to  be  considered,  is,  whether 
tTie  Sedition  law  is  or  is  not  a  law  which  tends  to 
abridge  the  freedom  of  speech,  or  of  the  press.  Let 
facts   bear  witness.     What   was  James  Thomson 
Callender  proscuted  for  at  Richmond?  For  publish- 
ing his  opinions   through  the  medium  of  the  Press. 
What  ^  was  Charles  Holt,  the  Editor  of  the  New- 
London  Bee,  prosecuted  for?    Because  he  publish- 
ed  the  opinions   of  another  person.      What    was 
Thomas  Cooper  prosecuted   for?     For  publishing 
his  opinions  through  the  same  mode  of  communica- 
tion:— VIZ.  the  Press,     If  these  prosecutions  were 
not  for  the  pitblication  of  opinions,  then  the  Consti- 
tution has  not  been  violated  by  them;  but  if  they 
were  for  opinions,  (and  that  they  were  those  trials 
will  testify,)' then  the  Constitution  has  been  violated, 
both  by  the  Sedition  law  under  which  they  were 
convicted,  and  by  the  prosecutions  themselves.     It 
is  absurd  to  say  they  were  convicted  for  libellous  and 
false  publications,  and  that  this  very  law  allows  the 
truth  of  the  publication  to  be  given  as  exculpatory 
evidence.     J.  T.  Callender  was  refused  by  the  court 
that  time  which  was  necessary  to  bring  his  evidences 
forward.     To  tell  a  man  that  he  has  a  inght,  and  to 
refuse  him  the  exercise  of  that  right,  is  an  insult  to 
the  common  sense  of  mankind. 

It  has  been  maintained,  that  the  Sedition  -law  was 
not  unconstitutional,  notwithstanding  what  is  said 
in  the  before  quoted  article.  In  support  of  this 
opinion,  the  eighteenth  clause  of  the  eighth  section 
of  the  Constitution,  Article  first  has  been  adduced.  It 
says  that  the  Congress -shall  have  power  "  To  make 
all  laws  which  shall  be  necessary  and  proper  for  car- 
rying into  execution  the  foregoing  powers,  and  all 
ether  powers  vested  by  this  Constitution  in  the 
government  of  the  United  States,  or  in  any  depart- 
ment or  officer  thereof." 

P 


(     26     ) 

This  it  must  be  confessed,  is  what  it  has  often 
been  called  "  a  sweeping  clause."  It  has  not^ 
however,  been  proved  that  it  empowered  Congress 
to  restrict  the  freedom  of  Speech  or  Press.  Until 
this  can  be  proved,  all  the  reasonings  upon  that 
clause  in  favour  of  the  Sedition  law,  must  fall  to  the 
ground.  It  is  surely  paying  a  very  scurvy  compli- 
ment to  the  federal  government,  to  say  that  it  was 
necessary  to  have  a  law  passed  to  protect  any  of  the 
members  from  the  free  animadversions  of  their  con- 
stituents. Oliver  Cromwell  ordered  those  things 
better.  When  he  had  seized  and  detained  the  man- 
uscript of  Harrington's  Oceana,  the  author  one  day 
•took  the  opportunity  of  seizing,  and  running  ofF 
with  a  child  of  the  Protector's  daughter.  He  was 
taken  and  carried  before  Cromwell,  who  questioned 
him  concerning  his  motive  for  so  uncommon  an  out- 
rage. "  You  have  taken  inij  child  from  me,"  said 
the  undaunted  republican.  What  child?  "  My 
Oceana."  The  Protector  laughed,  and  ordered  the 
manuscript  to  be  given  him,  observing  at  the  same 
time,  "  that  his  government  was  surely  proof  against 
paper  shot." 

If  such  w^as  the  opinion  of  a  Tyrant  and  Usurper, 
how  ought  those  to  be  ashamed  who  assert  that  the 
federal  government  is  in  danger  from  the  same  sort 
of  ammunition ;  and  that  too,  from  the  very  people 
by  whose  consent  it  exists,  iDy  whose  will  it  had  a 
beginning?  ^ 

Let  any  unprejudiced  person  compare  the  law, 
and  the  manner  in  which  it  has  been  carried  into  ef- 
fect, with  the  Constitution,  and  then  say  whether 
the  one  be  consistent  with  the  other.  Supposing 
only,  however  that  it  should  be  inconsitent  with  the 
Constitution,  what  would  then  be  the  consequence  ? 
If  the  people  are  satisfied  it  is  enough,  at  least,  for 
the   governnrent.     While   the  people  submit  to  It 


(     27      ) 

from  choice,  no  one.  can  have  any  thing  to  say  be- 
tween the  government  and  them.  It  would  be  a 
pity  to  compell  those  who  are  wilHng  to  be  slaves, 
to  become  freemen.  If  on  the  contrary,  the  peo- 
ple are  not  satisfied,  a  contest  of  some  kind  or  other 
must  inevitably  take  place  between  the  governors, 
and  the  governed.  The  issue  of  such  contest  will  be 
one  of  two  things.  Either  the  government  will 
compell  the  people  to  submit  to  their  decision,  or  the 
peopje  oblige  the  government  to  be  directed  by  the 
public  will.  In  either  case  the  Constitution  ivoiild 
be  violated s  no  matter  in  how  small,  no  matter  in 
how  minute  a  part.     Like  the  great  system  of  nature 

"  Tenth,  or  tenth  thoufandth  breaks  the  chain  alike." 

For,  if  the  government  should  attempt  to  palliate 
or  defend  their  conduct  in  this  case,  it  would  not 
change  the  nature  of  the  principle.  Suppose  they 
were  to  say,  "  It  is  an  extraordinary  case — the 
country  is  in  great  and  imminent  danger  from  exter- 
nal enemies,  and  internal  foes ;  your  government  is 
assailed  upon  every  side,  ^  for  we  have  fallen  in  evil 
times,  yea,  in  evil  times  have  we  fallen,"  this  law  is 
indeed  beyond  the  strict  letter  of  the  Constitution, 
but  it  is  for  yonr^  and  our  safety  and  advantage. 
As  soon  as  the  circumstances  of  the  times  alter,  you 
shall  again  enjoy  your  rights  and  privileges,  and  xve 
shall  again  resort  unto  the  strict  letter  of  the  Consti- 
tution.'* 

Supposing  all  this  to  be  true.  Supposing  also, 
that  the  members  of  government  are  patriots,  un- 
ambitious, strictly  virtuous  and  honesty  still  it  is  ta 
be  remembered,  they  are  not  immortal!  Other  Pha- 
roah$  may  arise,  who  know  not  Joseph.  They 
may,  before  the  situation  of  the  country  is  changed* 
be  no  more.  Others  may  succeed  less  virtuous> 
and  more  ambitious  than  they.  Finding  themselves 
strongly  fortified  by  penal  codes,  and  Sedition  laws, 
and  vainly  imagining  that  in  proportion  as  they  iu- 


(     28     )       , 

crease  their  power,  they  will  add  to  their  happiness; 
they  may  look  upon  the  violated  and  prostrate  Con- 
stitution, as  "  a  dead  letter  that  profiteth  nothing/* 
and  consign  it  to  the  shades  of  oblivion. 

These  are  no  vain  suppositions.  They  are  with- 
in the  circle  o^ possibility  ;  and  whatever  is  so,  may 
happen  ^  and  ought,  by  every  wise  man,  and,  free 
people  to  be  strictly  guarded  against.  If  such 
should  ever  be  the  situation  of  these  States, — if, 
stich  should  ever  be  the  sentiments  of  their  govern- 
ment,— if  such  should  ever  be  the  tame  submission 
of  their  citizens, — Where  would  then  be  the  ad- 
vantages of  their  excellent  Constitution  ? — where 
w^ould  then  be  their  rights  and  liberties  ?  They 
w^ould  then  look  back  with  regret  at  their  supine- 
ness,  and  forward  with  horror  at  their  situation  ! 

The  design  of  •written  Constitutions  was  to  pre*, 
scribe  the  duty  of  the  Government,  to  ascertain  what 
xiegree  of  power  was  delegated  to  it,  and  to  declare, 
what  natural  rights  the  people  had  given  up,  and 
what  they  had  retained.  They  are  certainly  a  great 
improvement  in  the  science  of  government.  It  has 
indeed  been  maintained  by  a  late  political*  writer 
of  the  first  eminence,  that  they  are  liable  to  serious; 
objections,  and  that  upon  the  ground  of  political 
justice  they  ought  not  to  exist.  It  is  not  for  me  to. 
enter  the  lists  of  controversy  with  so  profound  a  rea- 
soner ;  neither  in  the  present  instance  would  it 
affect  my  argument,  though  the  truth  of  v^^hat  he 
endeavours  to  establish,  were  fully  proven.  While 
such  an  instrument  exists y  it  is  a  compact  of  the 
most  important  kind,  a  bond  of  the  most  solemn 
obligation  upon  the  Government.  No  excuses  of 
times,  or  circumstances  ought  ever  to  be  admitted 

*  Godwin  in  his  work  entitled  "  An  Encjuiry  concerning  political' 
juBkc,'* 


(     29     ) 

of  by  the  people.     No  virtuous  and  patriotic  Gok 
vernment  will  ever  attempt  to  offer  them. 

Even  under  the  Brkish  Government,  where  no 
written  instrument,  of  this  kind  ever  existed  ;  but 
in  which  country  the  principles  of  liberty  were  for 
a  long  period  better  understood  than  in  any  other 
European  country  :  even  there,  what  is  called  the 
Constitution^  has  by  all  patriotic  writers  been  view- 
ed in  the  same  light  which  I  do  xmdtten  Constitu- 
tions. Dean  Swift  says  upon  this  subject,  after 
supposing  that  the  plea  of  expedience  and  neces- 
sity would  be  urged  by  the  Government :  ^'  This 
is  breaking  into  a  Constitution  to  serve  a  prcscM 
expedient.,  or  supply  a  present  exigency :  The 
remedy  of  an  emperick,  to  stifle  the  present  pain, 
but  with  certain  prospect  of  sudden  and  terrible 
returns.'* 

Upon  this  subject  also,  I  shall  here  cite  the- 
opinion  of  a  well  known,  and;  eminent  writer  in. 
this  country.  It  is  so  explicit,  that  the  quota tioa 
needs  no  comment. 

*'  The  members  of  the  Legislature,  collectivelj/ 
and  individually^  are  under  a  constitutional  ob- 
ligation to  observe  the  injunctions  of  a  pre-exist- 
ing law,  and  to  give  it  effect.  If  they  act  other- 
wise, they  infringe  the  Constitution,  the  theory 
of  which,  knows  no  such  case,  no  discretion 
on  their  part.  To  resort  to  first  principles  for  their 
justification  in  assuming  such  a  discretion,  is  •♦to 
go  out  of  the  Constitution,  for  an  authority  which 
they  cannot  find  in  it ;  it  is  to  usurp  the  original 
character  of  the  people  themselves,  it  is  in  principle 
to  prostrate,  the  Government. 

"  The  cases  must  be  very  extraordinary  that  can 
excuse  so  violent  an  assumption  of  discretion.^ 
They  must  be  of  a  kind  to  authorize  a  revolution 
in  Government  5  for  every  resort  to  original  prin- 


(     30     ) 

ciples  in  derogation  from  the  established  Constitu* ' 
tion,  partakes  of  this  character."* 

From  what  has  been  said  in  this  chapter,  the 
following  deductions  may  be  drawn. 

While  a  people  have  prescribed  to  their  Govern- 
ment, such  certain  and  unequivocal  rules  for  the 
conduct  of  the  administration  of  their  functions,  as 
the  people  of  the  United  States  have  done,  they 
must  surely  be  obligatory.  The  Government  can 
have  no  more  constitutional  right  to  enact  laws  in 
contradiction  to  the  express  and  positive  -letter  of 
that  Constitution,  than  the  people  to  refuse  obedi- 
ence to  constitutional  laws.  In  the  one  case,  it 
would  be  the  Government  violating  that  which  they 
have  solemnly  sworn  to  observe  ;  in  the  other,  it 
would  be  the  People  refusing  submission  to  the 
laws  themselves  had  authorised,  and  to  which  they 
had  sworn  to  give  their  support.  Both  would  be 
vices  of  the  worst  kind,  both  would  be  productive 
of  destruction  to  that  social  order,  without  which, 
society  could  not  exist. 

The  Liberty  of  Speech  and  Press  being  of  the 
first  importance  to  mankind,  ought  to  be  guarded 
with  the  most  jealous  vigilance.^  No  pretences  or 
excuses  ought  to  be  adduced  by  the  Government, 
nor  admitted  by  the  People.  The  same  duly 
which  oblige  the  people  to  yield  a  prompt  and 
willing  obedience  to  constitutional  laws,  direct 
them  to  oppose  every  one  of  an  opposite  kind. 

It  ought  also  to  be  observed,  that  as  the  <:o7isii- 
iuiionality  of  the  Sedition  law,  is  like  most  other 
subjects,  a  matter  of  opinion  ;  it  ought  to  be  exam- 
ned  and  compared  with  the  Constitution.  If  the 
public  opinion  can  reconcile  the  one  witli  the 
other,  then  all  is  well,  if  they  conceive  that  neither 

*  See  Caawllus  on  the  Brlilflv  Treatyv 


(     31     ) 

speech  iior  press  is  shackled  by  its  operation,  it 
is  also  well;  but  if  they  think  the  contrary  is 'the 
case,  then  let  them  determine  that  it  shall  never 
exist  again. 


CHAP.  V. 


Examination  of  the  propositions  continued. — Danger 
of  Precedent. — Exemplified  in  the  British  Go- 
vernment. — In  the  French. — Absurditj/  of  political 
nick-names  in  free  discussion. — If  the  Constitution 
he  defective^  let  it  he  amended. 


I 


N  the  examination  of  the  proposition  we  are 
now  considering,  the  doctrine  oi precedent  naturally 
presents  itself  to  our  view.  A  more  dangerous 
principle  never  could  be  advanced,  either  by  Go- 
vernments or  individuals.  In  private  life,  were  it 
made  the  criterion  of  action,  it  would  justify  the 
most  attrocious  deeds,  as  however  horrid  or  unjust, 
others  might  be  adduced  of  equal  terpitude.  la 
Governments  they  are  equally  dangerous  to  the 
liberties  of  the  people,  as  in  private  life  they 
would  be  to  the  interests  of  morahty.  Most  of 
the  glaring  encroachments  of  governments  upon 
the  rights  and  liberties  of  the  governed,  have  origi- 
nated from  precedent.  Some  trifling  circumstance  oc- 
curs in  itself  of  little,  or  no  importance,  but  which  is 
contrary  in  its  nature  to  the  prescribed  rules  of  the 
Constitution.  The  people  acquiesce  in  it,  because 
they  view  it  as  insignificant.  The  ministerial  po- 
litician however,  views  it  in  a  different  manner, 
and  justly  conceives  it  to  be  the  foundation  of  other 
inovations,  upon  which  he  thinks  may  be  reared 


i     32     ) 

the  structure  of  despotic  power,  while  the  for7n 
of  the  original  Constitution  will  still  remain. 

To  shew  that  this  is  really  the  case,  let  us  resort 
for  an  elucidation  of  the  subject  to  the  British 
Government,  and  to  that  of  France.  There  we 
"will  behold  the  danger  of  precedent  pourtrayed  in 
its  true  colours. 

When  the  British  had  compelled  the  bigotted 
tyrant  James  the  Second,  to  leave  his  country  and 
throne,  by  the  assistance  of  the  Prince  of  Orange 
in  1688  :  it  was  then  supposed  (and  has  been  often 
since  believed)  that  they  acquired  their  liberty. 
However,  this  point  may  be  disputed,  certain  it  is 
that  the  prerogative  of  the  king,  and  the  privi- 
ledges  of  the  parliament  were  better  defined  than 
formerly.  The  people  indeed,  were  left  as  they 
were,  with  the  very  important  right  of  petitioning, 
"  A  right,'*  (as  has  been  observed  be  a  late  writer) 
"  of  which  we  might  as  well  talk,  as  of  the  right 
of  blowing  one's  nose."  It  was  neither  more  nor 
less  than  the  right  of  the  most  abject  slaves,  under 
the  most  despotic  government ;  however,  even 
ihiSy  the  people  arc  now  by  the  British  Government 
deprived  of,  because  they  are  not  allowed  to  assem- 
ble,  except  under  such  restrictions,  as  amounts  to 
a  total  prohibition ;  and  how  is  this  ?  how  does  it 
arise  ?  it  has  proceeded  from  precedent. 

At  the  period  of  the  revolution  I  have  just  now 
mentioned,  triennial  parliaments  were  established, 
and  it  was  determined  that  the  term  of  their  ex- 
istence should  not  be  lengthened.  It  was  an  ac- 
knowledged principle  in  their  supposed  Constitution. 
It  was  also  determined  about,  or  at  that  time,  that 
place-men,  and  pensioners,  should  not  be  allowed 
tosit  in  Parliament,  and  that  for  the  very  obvious 
reason,  of  preventing  tbxc  king  having  an  undue 
influence  over  the  House  of  Commons.     The  Libera 


{     33     ) 

iy  of  the  Press  was  also  guarantee'd  though  under 
certain  restrictions.  The  nature  of  the  British 
Government  is  now  entirely  changed.  Tricnnihi 
parliaments,  have  given  place  to  Scptiennial  ones. 
Place-men  and  pensioners  abound  in  the  House  of 
Commons ;  the  Liberty  of  the  Press  can  hardly 
.  be  said  to  exist,  and  as  before  observed,  the  people 
are  not  allowed  to  assemble  together,  to  discuss 
political  subjects,  or  petition  that  parliament  which 
ought  to  be  their  servants,  w'hich  ought  to  be  the 
organ  of  the  public  will. 

The  rebellion  in  Scotland,  of  1715,  afforded  the 
Parliament,  then  sitting,  a  pretence  for  prolonging 
their  existence  for  seven  years,  lest  by  a  general 
election,  a  number  of  Jacobites  should  be  re- 
turned. 

Under  the  pretence  of  honouring  those  who  had 
served  their  country  in  the  army  or  navy,  those 
holding  offices  of  trust  or  profit  under  the  king 
were  admitted  to  sit  in  the  House  of  Commons. 

Under  the  pretence  of  curbing  the  Licentiousness 
of  the  Press,  were  laws  enacted  undermining  its 
liberty.  For,  having  once  broken  in  upon  those 
established  rules  called  the  Constitution,  the  first 
violation  served  as  the  precedent  for  all  the  rest. 

As  the  subject  of  this  work  is  particularly  con- 
cerning the  Liberty  of  the  Press,  I  shall  adduce 
some  instances  of  a  most  glaring  nature,  all  of 
which  have  recently  taken  place  in  that  country 
and  all  of  which  were  for  publishing  the  truth  : 
one  prosecution  served  as  precedent  for  another,  in 
the  same  manner  as  in  the  acts  of  the  Government 
which  gave  rise  to  them. 

In  1790,  the  printer  of  a  new^spaper  in  Dublin, 

under  the  title  of  the  Phoenix,  was  prosecuted  by  a 

reverend  divine,  for  a  false,  scandalous  and  seditious 

LIBEL,   published  in  his  paper  of  10th  of  May, 

«  £ 


(     34     ) 

same  year.  This  was  'said  in  the  indictment  to 
reflect  injuriously  upon  the  character  and  conduct 
of  the  prosecutor:  it  accused  him  of  having  associ- 
ated with,  and  directed  a  tumultuous  mob  during 
the  time  of  an  election  at  Kilmainham,  of  having 
worn  election  ribbands  in  his  hat  and  breast,  and 
having  uttered  oaths  and  blasphemous  expressions, 
unbecoming  the  character  ef  a  clergyman. 

After  counsel  had  been  heard  for  the  defendant, 
on  account  of  several  interUneadons  in  the  original 
copy  of  the  indictment,  made  after  the  attested  copy 
was  procured,  as  well  as  to  the  admissability  of  the 
prosecutors  on  evidence,  together  with  other  objec- 
tions against  the  legality  of  the  proceedings,  all  of 
which  were  overruled  by  the  court,  the.  prosecutor 
himself  was  the  only  evidence  examined.  Upon 
his  cross-examination  this  very  prosecutor,  admitted 
the  TRUTH  of  the  circumstances  above  stated. 

The  jury,  after  being  a  long  time  inclosed,  re- 
turned a  verdict,  in  the  following  words, — "  Wc 
find  that  the  defendant  is  printer  and  publisher, 
not  guilty  of  any  libel." 

The  judge  refused  to  accept  the  verdict,  and 
told  them  they  must  return  a  general  one.  Accord- 
ingly they  were  sent  back  to  the  jury-room,  and 
locked  up  until  nine  o'clock  next  morning,  when 
the  court  met,  and  then  they  returned  a  general 
verdict  of— NOT  GUILTY  ! 

The  judge  was  displeased,  and  held  his  hands 
while  he  thanked  God  it  was  not  his  verdict.  One 
of  the  jury  told  bis  Lordship,  "  that  the  indictment 
stated  the  libel  to  be  false,  but  the  prosecutor  by 
his  own  evidence  had  admitted  it  to  be  true,  and 
,  that  in  consistence  with  their  oaths,  they  could  not 
ihave  found  any  other  verdict."  The  judge  in 
reply  to  this,  quoted  the  following  opinion  of  Lord 
Mansfield,   viz»  "  The  truth  of  a  libel,  is  an  ag- 


(     35     ) 

gfav'ation  of  its  guilt,"  or,  "  that  a  libel,  is  the  mor^ 
a  libel  for  being  true  ;"  the  juror  answered,  "  my 
Lord,  wc  cannot  hold  that  opinion." 

The  behaviour  and  sentiments  of  this  judge, 
was  founded  upon  many  precedents,  so  common 
had  they  become  about  this  time,  under  the  British 
government,  that  they  attracted  the  notice  of  one 
of  the  Scots  judges,  viz.  Lord  Grandenston.  In  a 
life  and  character  of  the  celebrated  George  Buchan- 
an, published  by  him  is  the  following  remark, 

"  Though  he  lived  and  died  in  the  bosom  of 
treason,  rapine,  and  proscription  ;  Buchanan  would 
have  seen,  with  surprise,  our  modern  standard  of 
morality.  We  call  ourselves  a  free  people,  and 
yet  we  have  submitted  to  hear,  from  the  chair 
of  justice.  That  TRUTH  is  a  libel,  a  doctrine 
which  tears  up  the  foundations  of  civil  society,  and 
compared  to  which  transubstantiation,  or  even  the 
divine  right  of  tyrants,  is  a  modest  and  respectable 

o/^rA  r^  1  Cl  TY1  ■^  ^  *^  ^  ^  ^  ^  *  '^  ^  '^ 

'^  It  is  natural  enough  that  a  Barrister  whose 
life  has  been  employed  in  brawling,  should  in  the 
end,  distort  his  own  mind  out  of  all  sense  o^  equity^ 
and  when  he  mounts  the  saddle  of  authority,  such 
decisions  may  sometimes  be  expected  ;  but  what 
shall  we  think  of  those  abandoned  jurors,  who, 
sporting  with  the  -trust  of  their  fellow-citizens, 
have  crouched  under  this  utmost  insolence  of  juri- 
dicial  corruption."* 

The  foregoing  is  not  the  empty  declamation  of 
a  poor,  discontented,  and  disappointed  Jacobin. 
it  is  the  opinion  of  one  of  the  Senators  of  the  Scots 
College  of  justice  in  Edinburgh.  The  remark  is 
supported  by  strong  and  undeniable   facts  both  in 

*  See  Lord  Grandenfton's  MifcelianleSj  page  282,  Printed  for 
Robertfon  and   Berry,  Edinburgh  1792. 


(     36     ) 

firitaln  and  Ireland.  A  variety  of  instances  have 
occurred  in  those  countries  within  the  last  thirty 
or  forty  years,  of  people  being  punished  for  spedkingy 
and  publishing  the  truth.  Hence  it  must  follow, 
that  if  those  are  to  be  punished  who  speak  or  pub- 
lish timth,  than  they  who  speak  or  ^wh\\%hfalsehoody 
ought  to  be  rewarded  :  but  this  last,  is  not  establish- 
ed by  precedent. 

I  shall  here  relate  another  case  of  a  different 
kind  in  respect  to  the  circumstances,  but  upon  the 
same  ground  of  precedent,  namely,  publishing  the 
truth. 

Sometime  during  the  month  of  December  1792, 
or  January  1793,  three  journeymen-printers,  in  a 
drunken  frolic,  went  into  Edinburgh  Castle,  and 
having  called  for  liquor,  drank  some  foolish  and 
I'idiculous  toasts  :  amongst  others  it  was  said  they 
had  drank  d — m — n  to  King  George,  and  all 
crowned  tyrants.  Not  satisfied  with  doing  so  them- 
selves, they  endeavoured  to  persuade  some  of 
the  soldiers  who  were  in  the  public  room,  to  drink 
the  same.  The  conseqence  of  such  imprudent  con- 
duct was  what  might  have  been  expected  in  a 
garrison.  They  were  committed  prisoners  to  the 
main  guard,  and  next  day  delivered  up  to  the 
civil  power.  Shortly  after;  they  were  served  with 
an  indictment,  charging  them  with  being  guilty  of 
an  attempt  to  seduce  his  majesty's  miHtary  from 
their  duty  and  allegiance.  They  were  tried  and 
found  guilty,  condemned  to  nine  months  imprison^ 
raent,  and  to  find  bail  for  their  future  good  beha- 
viour. 

The  editors  of  a  newspaper  then  published,  cal- 
led the  Edinburgh  Gazetteer,  reported  the  proceed* 
ings  upon  the  above  trial  in  their  paper.  In  this 
report,  they  also  gave  the  opinions  delivered  by  the 
judges.     The  opinion  of  Lord  Justice  Clerk  (the 


(     5?     ) 

supreme  judge  of  the  court  of  Justiciary)  waSj 
"  That  to  curse  Almighti/  God  ivas  nothing,  he  was 
too  far  exalted  above  us,  to  take  any  notice  of  such 
foolishness ;  but  to  curse  our  gracious  sovereign, 
zvas  the  height  of  impiety.''* 

For  the  publication  of  the  speech  containing  the 
foregoing  curious  sentiment.  Captain  William  John- 
ston the  proprietor,  and  George  Drummond  the 
Editor  of  the  paper,  were  by  a  warrant  of  Lord 
Justice  Clerk,  brought  to  the  bar  of  the  court,  and 
charged  with  publishing  a  "  false,  scandalous,  and 
seditious  libel  upon  that  Majesty's  High  Court  of 
Justiciary,  tending  to  bring  his  High  and  Honoura- 
ble Court  into  disrespect  with  the  people."  Proof 
was  offered  by  the  council  for  the  defendants,^  that 
Lord  Justice  Clerk  had  said  so,  but  the  court 
refused  its  admission,  upon  the  grounds  that  they 
were  judges  of  their  own  privileges,  and  that  it  was 
a  contempt  of  court.  No  other  alternative  was  left 
to  the  accused,  than  that  of  submitting  themselves 
to  the  mercy  of  the  court*  Accordingly,  on  Satur- 
day the  23d  of  February  1793,  they  received  the 
following  sentence.  Chaptain  Johnston  to  pay  a 
fine  of  one  hundred  pounds  sterling,  three  months 
imprisonment^  and  find  securities  to  keep  the  peace 
for  three  years,  under  the  penalty  of  three  hundred 
pounds  :  Mr.  Drummond  thxee  months  imprison- 
ment,  and  to  banish  himself  from  the  kingdom. 

All  this  xvas  done  ivithout  the  intervention  of  a 
Jury.  However  the  matter  might  be  twisted  by  a 
lawyer,  the  plain  English  of  it  is  this ;  the  court 
were  the  agrieved  parties,   and  the  sole  judges  in 


*  I  am  obliged  at  this  diftance  of  time,  to  quote  from  memory,  al- 
though I  have  in  ray  pofleQion  a  file  of  that  paper,  it  is  not  a  complete 
one,  and  I  want  in  particular,  the  one  which  contains  this  trial.  The 
accuracy  of  the  fentiment,  however,  can  he  fubftantiated  by  numbers 
of  people  from  Edinburgh;  as  well  as  otb.er  parts  of  Scotland, 


(     3§     ) 

their  ow7i  causer.  Now,  they  certainly  knew  whefe 
er  the  Lord  Justice  Clerk  had,  or  had  not  spokerl 
these  words.  If  he  did  not,  then  the  editor  and 
•printer,  ought  either  to  have  apologised  for  their 
mistake,  or  if  wilfully  misrepresented,  they  deserv- 
ed punishment.  If  they  were  not  spoken,  then  the 
court  had  a  fair  opportunity  of  asserting  their  dig- 
nity, and  of  clearing  the  character  of  their  presiding 
judge  :  if  true,  it  was  but  justice  they  should  have 
publicity,  as  the  Lord  Justice  Clerk  is  a  man  re- 
markable for  railing  at  the  Atheism  and  Infidelity 
of  the  French  !  With  what  propriety  let  the  reader 
judge.  ^ 

Having  seen  some  of  the  effects  of  precedent  un- 
der the  British  government,  let  us  now  turn  our 
attention  to  France,  even  to  republican  and  rege- 
nerated France  ;  we  shall  find  that  even  there, 
violation  of  the  constitution  after  violation  has  taken 
place,  and  the  nefarious  doctrine  of  precedent  has 
shed  its  baleful  influencCi 

It  is  true,  I  am  not  in  possession  of  a  sufficient 
number  of  facts,  to  be  able  to  point  out  the  origin 
of  these  violations  of  their  Constitution,  which 
serv^ed  as  a  precedent  for  those  which  followed. 
Enough  I  however  know,  to  point  out  their  incon- 
sistency with  the  Directorial  Constitution.  As  for 
the  Constitution  of  Dictator  Buonaparte,  it  is  out 
of  the  question  ;  a  Constitution  promulgated  by  the 
sound  of  martial  music,  and  established  at  the  points 
of  three  or  four  hundred  thousand  bayonets,  is  not 
of  that  kind  which  I  am  now  investigating. 

The  Freedom  of  Speech,  and  Liberty  of  the 
Press,  was  guarantee'd  to  the  people  of  France 
under  their  late  Constitution.  Short  however  was 
the  pejjiod  of  the  existance  of  this  Liberty  of  the 
Press.  It  soon  was  no  where  to  be  found,  unless 
in  the  Constitution  itself.     Newspapers,  those  ter- 


(     3^     J 

roTS  to  tyrants,  soon  experienced  the  vengeance  of 
the  Directory :  In  this  respect  they  have  been  equally 
severe  and  unjustifiable  as  the  old  government  of 
France,  or  the  present  government  of  Britain.  The 
general  charges  exhibited  against  this  species  of 
publications  have  been,  that  they  advocated  the 
cause  of  Royalty.  I  rather  believe  however,  that 
the  real  truth  of  the  matter  was,  that  they  investi- 
gated the  actions  of  the  Directory  with  a  greater 
degree  of  freedom,  than  they  wished  to  submit  unto, 
and  a  more  minute  scrutiny,  than  their  actions  would 
bear.  But  admitting,  for  the  sake  of  argument,  that 
they  did  advocate  the  cause  of  royalty,  it  would  be 
no  justifiable  reason  for  interfering  with  them.  If 
republicanism  be  decidedly  preferable  to  monarchy, 
what  can  it  have  to  fear,  if  administered  with  justice, 
and  agreeably  to  the  Constitution  ?  If  the  people  are 
republicans  from  a  preference  to  this  form  of  go- 
vernment, founded  upon  a  conviction  of  its  superior 
justice  and  advantages,  what  has  republicanism  in 
this  case  to  fear,  from  the  friends  of  monarchy.?  If 
on  the  contrary,  their  be  evils  in  republicanism,  they 
ought  to  be  known;  and  the  sooner  they  are  known 
the  better :  But  if  royalty  has  the  advantage  over 
republicanism,  then  that  ought  also  to  be  known. 
-Let  public  opinion  deside  between  the  two  opposite 
principles.  If  allowed  the  free  and  unconstrained 
exercise  of  this  principle  it  will  decide.  In  either 
case,  if  the  government  interfere,  it  is  unjust,  and 
the  probability  is,  it  will  give  an  undue  influence. 
If  the  people  are  Tepublicans  from  choice,  or  royal- 
ists from  the  same,  it  is  a  most  detestible  species  of 
tyranny  to  compel  them  to  be  in  appearance  what 
they  are  not  in  sentiment.  It  is  encouraging  both 
national  and  individual  hypocrisy.  Such  conduct 
saps  the  foundations  of  morality,  injures  the  interests 
x)f  society,  and  holds  up  sincerity  as  the  worst  pf 


,       (     40     ) 

crimes.  No  cliaracter  can  be  more  base  than  the 
hypocrite,  unless  it  be  that  Government  which  en- 
genders it,  by  preventing  the  free  and  unconstrained 
operation  of  opinion.  The  real  language  of  such 
governments,  however  they  may  disguise  the  mat- 
ter, is  this  :  "  I  will  have  recourse  to  the  only  means 
that  are  congenial  to  guilty  I  will  compel  you  to  be 
silent  y'"^ 

The  violation  of  the  Liberty  of  the  Press,  if  it 
was  nor  the.//>^/,  nevertheless  served  as  a  precedent 
for  others.  The  banishment  of  a  number  of  both 
the  Councils^  and  even  two  of  the  Directory,  by  the 
remaining  three^  was  a  daring  infringement  upon 
the  inviolability  of  the  national  representatives. 
No  crimes  were  ever  legally  proved  against  them, 
because  they  were  never  brought  to  trial. 

One  precedent  always  brings  on  another.  Ac- 
cordingly the  Directory  not  only  rejected  many  of 
the  newly  elected  representatives,  but  even  pre-^ 
scribed  those  they  should  elect.  This  they  justified 
upon  the  same  pretended  grounds  as  their  former 
violations,  viz.  to  check  royalisviy  terrorism^  and 
anti-revolutionism.  They  made  use  of  those  bugbear 
words  to  create  alarm,  and  justify  their  conduct,  in 
the  same  way  as  the  British  Government.  Whoever 
dares  in  Britain  to  question  the  propriety  of  the 
ministerial  proceedings,  is  immediately  branded  by 
way  of  reproach  with  being  a  repidylican  and  leveller. 
In  France,  such  characters  are  called  royalists,  or 
anti-revolutionists.  Even  in  this  country y  every  one 
who  for  some  years  back  have  dissented  in  opinion 
from  those  administering  the  Government,  have 
been  railed  at  as  disorganixerSy  jacobinSy  anti-fede- 
ralists  and  democrats y  as  if  there  were  any  difFer-r 

*  Godwin, 


(     41     ) 

cnce  between  the  terms  democrat,*^  and  repiihUcan$ 
or,  that  all  or  any  of  the  democratic  party  wished 
an  annihilation  of  the  Federal  Government.  While 
the  opposite  party  are  equally  lavish  in  their  terms  of 
Tory  and  Aristocrat.  With  respect  to  this  coun- 
try, I  shdl  beg  leave  to  observe,  that  such  a  mode* 
of  argumentation  may  irritate^  bnt  never  can  con- 
vince. Whenever  an  individual  substitutes  instead 
of  argument,  names  which  he  conceives  to  be  t^rms 
of  reproach;  it  is  a  fair  and  justifiable  conclusion, 
that  such  conduct  betrays  the  weakness  of  their 
judgment,  if  not  of  the  cause  they  wish  to  support. 
But  to  return  to  the  subject. 

Sufficient  instances  have  been  adduced  to  shew 
the  impropriety  of  a  people  acquiescing  in  any  vio- 
lation of  their  Constitution,  from  the  dangerous  na- 
ture oi precedent.  We  al§o  see  by  all  and  every  one 
of  the  preceding  instances,  that  every  violation  was 
intended  to  suppress  the  free  exercise,  or  expressioa 
of  the  public  will.  The  prosecutions  founded  upon 
those  in  Britain,  and  the  prohibitions  in  France^ 
were  meant  to  destroy  the  Liberty  of  the  Press.  In 
both,  they  were  contrary  to  the  rules  of  the  Consti- 
tution, or  that  which  is  so  called. 

Perhaps  it  may  be  argued,  that  in  the  progress  of 
the  administration  of  a  Government,  many  unfore^ 
seen  circumstances  may  occur,  which  being  either 
unprovided  for  by  the  Coshtitution,  or  perhaps  of  a 

*  In  proof  of  this,  fee  the  following  extracts  from  Dr.  Samuel  John* 
fon's  Dictionary,  8vo.  edition. 

Democracy.  One  of  the  three  forms  of  government;  that  ia 
which  the  fovereign  power  is  lodged  in  the  body  of  the  people. 

Democratical.  (From  democracy,)  pertaining  to  a  popular  go- 
vernment, popular. 

Republican.  (From  republic,)  placing  the  government  in  the 
people. 

Republican.  One  who  thinks  a  commonwealth  withoyt  n?onar* 
/ehy  the  beft  government. 

F 


f  <2  ) 

nature  that  requires  a  direct  violation  of  that  instro- 
ment;  otherwise,  the  happiness  and  security  of  the 
people  must  suffer:  therefore,  a  government  so  situ- 
ated, may,  w^ith  justice,  act  contrary  to  the  Consti- 
tution. Admitting  all  this  to  be  true,  what  does  it 
amount  to?  That  the  Constitution  is  defeC-jve,  and 
therefore  requires  amendment.  For  this,  the  Con- 
stitution of  the  United  States  has  prescribed  a  parti- 
cular and  specified  mode.  Therefore,  as  the  peo- 
ple cannot  enact  laws,  except  through  the  medium 
of  their  Representatives ;  so  neither  can  the  govern- 
ment alter  that  Constitution  which  the  people  have 
prescribed  as  a  rule  of  action  to  those  administering 
that  government.  It  was  observed  by  Lord  Trea- 
surer Burleigh,  "  That  England  never  could  be  ruin- 
ed but  by  a  Farlimnenir  The  same  thing  cannot 
be  said  of  the  United  States,  They  cannot  be  Tuin- 
ed  by  a  Congress,  so  long  as  their  Constitution  is 
preserved  inviolate,  and  so  long  as  the  alterations 
which  time  and  circumstances  may  shew  to  be  ne- 
cessary, are  made  in  a  Constitutional  manner.  No 
other  kind  of  innovation  ought  ever  to  be  allowed  ; 
for  if  ever  it  is  done,  in  that  case  the  power  delegat- 
ed would  be  absurd,  and  a  pretended  right  exercisr- 
ed,  vv^hich  the  government  never  received. 


CHAP.  VT 


ExamiJiation  continued. — Justice  equally  binding  up- 
on Nations  as  upon  individuals. — Whether  ivhat  is 
morally  wrong  can  ever  be  politically  right  exam- 
ined,, — Trial  of  Warren  Hastings, — Slavery  and. 
the  Slave  Trade. — Established  Religions. 

fET  us  now  examine  the  third  proposition :  viz. 

Either  the  administrators  of  government  are  bound 


(     43     ) 

%  the  rules  of  eternal  justice,  in  their  public,  as  xcel 
as  private  capacities^  or  they  are  not. 

As  the  administrators  of  a  government,  are  only  a 
number  of  individuals  appointed  for  the  particular 
purpose  of  managing  the  public  concerns  of  a  com- 
munity; so  it  follows  of  course,  that  the  same  mo- 
ral obligations  so  far  from  being  relaxed,  really  be- 
come stronger  than  before ;  and,  that  for  this 
reason.  It  is  not  only  necessary  that  they  conduct 
the  affairs  of  government  according  to  justice;  but 
they  ought  also  by  their  conduct  in  private  life,  to 
set  an  example  of  morality  to  the  people.  As  every 
man  on  earth,  is,  or  ought  to  be,  bound  by  that 
noblest  of  all  precepts, — "  To  do  unto  others,  what- 
soever they  would  wnsh  others  should  do  unto  them  ;** 
so  this  precept  is  of  equal  obligation  in  a  natienaU  as 
in  an  individual  sense. 

It  is  indeed  astonishing  that  ever  this  principle 
should  have  been   disputed,  but   it  is  nevertheless 
true,  that  such  has  been  the  fact,     A  doctrine  in 
direct  opposition  to  it,  has  been  frequently  held  by 
governments.     A  maxim  has  been  by  them  promul- 
gated, ''Tliat  what  is  Morally  wrong,  may  often 
t)eFoLiTicALLY  right**     On  the  great  question 
concerning  the  abolition  of  the  Slave  trade,  in  the 
British  Parliament,  this  principle  was  insisted  upon, 
and  defended,  in  the  most  unlimited   sense.     In   a 
history  of  the  trial  of  Warren  Hastings,  published 
in  London,  in  1796;  and,  where  the  author  in  a  pre- 
face to  the  work,  calls  the  late  Governor  General 
of  Bengal,  "  A  good  man  struggling  with  adversity;'* 
the  above  maxim  is  avowed,  and  defended  in  these 
words: — "  It  has  been  justly  observed,  on  the  sub- 
ject of  legislation,  that  what  is  metaphisically  tru€y 
may  be  in  that  very  proportion,  politically  false  *^ 
What  this  author   means  by  metaphisical  truth,  is 
abstract  truth.     Now  nothing  can  be  abstractedly 


(     44     ) 

true^  unless  it  will  also  be  so  through  all  its  grades 
and  ramifications.  If  it  will  not  bear  this  trial,  then 
it  cannot  be  a  truth.  Consequently,  as  there  can  be 
but  one  kind  of  truth,  therefore  this  author  could 
mean  nothing  else  than  simple  truth,  and  to  say  that 
a  thing  is  true  in  one  instance,  and  false  in  another, 
may  be  very  good  sophistry,  but  it  is  certainly  y^ry 
bad  logic. 

The  same  author  afterwards  says,  **  He  (Warren 
Hastings)  maintained  the  British  Dominions  in  In- 
dia, by  means  exactly  of  the  same  kind  with  those 
that  acquired  them,  by  tvhich  alone  it  zvas  possible  to 
maintain  them'^ 

It  may  be  proper  to  observe,  that  it  was  by  sii-- 
perior force,  murder,  robbe?y^  zxidiplujider,  that  the 
British  Dominions  in  Asia  were  acquired;  therefore, 
according  to  this  author,  they  certainly  could  not  be 
maintained  by  any  other  means  than  superior  force, 
murder,  robbery,  and  plunder:  Yet  this  man,  be- 
cause he  has  undergone  a  trial  for  these  three  last 
mentioned  crimes,  is  styled  "  A  good  man  struggling 
zvith  adversity r  To  be  sure,  if  w^hat  is  morally 
wrong,  be  politically  right;  and  if  he  committed 
these  actions,  he  was  what  the  historian  of  the  trial 
calls  him. 

While  I  am  writing  this  article,  a  news-paper  lays 
before  me,  containing  a  speech  of  Mr.  Sherridan, 
delivered  in  the  House  of  Commons,  on  the  1st  Dec. 
18(X);  where  the  principle  now  under  cosnideration, 
is  unequivocally  contended  for. 

Speaking  of  the  dispute  with  Denmark,  and  al- 
luding to  the  probability  of  a  northern  coalition  in 
defence  of  the  rights  of  neutrals,  he  says; 

"  Without  giving  any  opinion  upon  that  dispute, 
without  saying  whether  any  guarantee  could  be 
given  with  respect  to  ships  under  convoy  of  neutral 
powers,  I  have  no  hesitation  in  stating,  that  if  the 


(     45     ) 

J^rivilege  we  contend  for,  be  that  under  which  our 
naval  greatness  has  grown,  which  is  at  once  the 
boast,  the  glory,  and  the  security  of  England ; 
which  has  been  recognized  in  all  treaties,  which 
is  part  of  the  maritime  law  of  Europe  :  if  I  repeat, 
it  be  that  privilege,  I  have  no  hesitation  in  saying, 
that  it  is  the  charter  of  our  existence,  the  banner 
under  which  we  should  rally,  it  is  the  flag  which 
imitating  the  example  of  our  gallant  seamen,  we 
should  nail  to  the  mast  of  the  nation,  and  go  down 
with  the  vessel  rather  than  strike  it." 

All  this  is  very  fine  to  be  sure,  excellent  declama- 
tion ;  but  what  is  the  argument  contained  in  it? 
it  is  this  nefarious  principle  now  under  examination, 
a  public  avowal  of  the  maxim  "  that  what  is 
morally  zvrong,  may  be  politicalhj  right.'"  It  is 
saying,  "  I  care  not  about  the  justice  or  injustice  of 
our  ships  of  war  stopping,  searching,  or  seizing 
neutrals,  it  has  been  to  our  advantage,  and  sooner 
than  give  it  up,  we  will  sacrifice  the  last  man  in 
the  nation."  It  is  the  same  argument  that  a 
high  way  robber  would  make  use  of,  for  continuing 
his  depredations.  But,  as  Bishop  Taylor  says  ;  "  in 
this  world  men  thrive  by  villainy,  and  lying  and 
deceiving  is  accounted  just,  and  to  be  rick  is  to  be 
zoise,  and  tyranny  is  honourable.  And  though  little 
thefts,  and  petty  mischiefs  are  interrupted  by  the 
laws,  yet  if  a  mischief  become  public  and  great, 
acted  by  Princes,  and  effected  by  armies  and  robbe- 
ries be  done  by  ivhole  fleets,  it  is  virtue,  and  it  is 
glory  r 

It  IS  not  however  in  the  island  of  Britain  that  thi^ 
maxim  of  moral  evil  being  political  virtue  has  been 
acted  upon  and  avowed..  The  negro  slavery  of 
the  United  States  is  defended  upon  the  same 
grounds.  It  is  for  those  who  bawl  about  liberty 
and  equality  at  a  democratic  meeting,  and  then  ^o 


(     46     )  •  ^ 

home  and  flog  their  ^  Slaves,  to  reconcile  the  one 
with  the  other.  Justice  knows  no  distinction 
of  colour,  knows  of  no  description  of  men  who 
ought 'to  be  deprived  of  thi^ir  natural  rights.  Law 
and  custom^  never  can  sancticn  injustice;  on  the 
contrary  it  makes  the  evil  more  pernicious.  "  Of 
all  injustice,  that,  is  the  greater  w^hich  goes  under 
the  name  of  /rt'r^J*^*  Slavery  is  not  only  unjustifi- 
able both  in  a  national  and  individual  point  of  view, 
but  like  every  other  violation  is  injurious  to  the 
community  where  it  exists.  To  prove  this  would 
be  no  difficult  t^sk  ;  but  it  is  not  necessary  here 
to  insist  upon  it.  All  the  design  of  noticing  it 
here,  is  to  shew,  that  both  the  government  and  in- 
dividuals of  a  nation  are  bound  by  the  rules  of  jus- 
tite,  and  that  if  any  principle  or  practice  is  sanc- 
tioned by  them,  contrary  to  this,  it  injures  the  first 
interest  of  society.  . 

That  what  is  morally  wrong  may  be  politically  right, 
is  so  very  absurd  to  an  ingenuous  mind,  that  such 
must  behold  it  with  astonishment  and  indignation. 
It  has  nevertheless  been  so  often  adduced  by  go- 
vernments as  a  defence  for  the  most  unjustifiable 
acts  of  power,  that  it  cannqt  be  too  much  reproba- 
ted. Of  this  kind  are  all  laws  tending  to  direct 
public  opinion,  whether  in  politics  or  religion.  All 
established  religions  fenced  round  with  penal  laws, 
are  most  notoriously  unjust.  How  is  it  possible  for 
every  individual  in  a  nation,  to  be  of  one  particular 
set  of  religious  opinions  ?  no  man  can  believe  any 
opinion,  or  system  of  opinions,  except  according  to 
the  force  with  which  the  evidence  operates  upon 
his  mind.  The  believers  in  every  religion  upon  the 
face  of  the  earth,  assert  theiYs  to  be  the  only  true 
one.     How  then  dare  governments  establish  any 

*  L*Enrange. 


i     47     ) 

one  in  particular  ?  wherever  established  religions 
exist,  those  who  a7'e  not,  or  do  not  pretend  to  be 
of  the  national  faith,  are  deprived  of  some  of  their 
political  rights,  as  if  difference  in  opinion  were  a 
crime.  Is  this  acting  according  to  the  rules  of 
justice  ?  certainly  not. 

The  French  government  when  they  interfered  in 
religious  opinions  by  abolishing  the  observation  of  » 
Sunday,  were  equally  wrong,  with  those  who  en- 
force its  observance.  If  I  observe  Sunday,  I  ought 
to  observe  it  from  a  motive  of  religious  obligation 
and  propriety,  not  because  the  laws  of  man  have 
prescribed  it.  If  I  am  convinced  that  it  is  my  duty, 
a  duty  which  I  owe  to  God,  to  observe  that  day; 
no  government  can  have  a  right  to  prohibit  me 
from  doing  so.  As  I  can  have  no  right  to  interfere 
with  my  neighbours  opinions  in  any  other  way  than 
by  argument  and  persuasion,  so  neither  can  govern- 
ment in  justice  do  so  with  the  people.  The  govern- 
ors, and  the  governed  are  equally  bound  by  the 
rules  of  eternal  justice  ;  both  are  equally  guilty  if 
they  violate  them.  If  there  is  to  be  one  standard  of 
morality  for  the  government,  and  another  for  the 
people,  then  all  distinction  between  virtue  and  vice 
is  at  an  end.  Whatever  in  this  case  was  a  vice  in 
an  individual,  might,  by  a  little  government  logic, 
be-  proved  to  be  a  virtue.  Miserable  must  be  the 
people  who  acquiesce  in  this  destruction  of  moral 
principle;  but  more  miserable  still,  those  who  ad- 
mire it.  The  same  thing  may  be  said  of  such,  as 
Lord  Shaftsbury  said  of  those  who  believed  in  di- 
vine right.  "  They  who  live  under  a  tyranny,  and 
have  learned  to  admire  its  power,  are  as  much  de- 
bauched in  their  religion^  as  in  their  morals'- 


(  ^^  ). 


CHAP.  VII. 

Last  proposition  examined, — Venice   ajid  Holland^ 
their  governments  originaliy  Democratic. — Deduc- 
tions from  the  foregoing  reasonings, 

|ET  us  now  examine  the  fourth  and  last  propo- 
sition. Governments  are  either  the  Servants  of  the 
People,  or  they  are  their  Masters. 

The  deductions  and  reasoning  from  this,  comes 
so  nearly  to  those  drawn  from  the  first  proposition, 
that  it  might  be  deemed  superfluous  to  have  stated  it, 
were  it  not  fashionable  among  certain  politicians,  to 
deny  the^first  part  of  it,  and  to  treat  it  with  ridicule. 
The  truth  however,  is,  there  is  no  medium  between 
the  two  opposite  extremes.  There  is  no  intermedi- 
ate title  by  which  the  administrators  of  a  govern- 
ment can  be  distinguished.  For,  as  government 
can  originate  but  in  two  ways,  either  by  usurpation 
or  delegation,  so  of  course,  the  members  thereof 
must  be  masters  of  the  people's  liberties,  or  sei^- 
vants  of  the  people's  will.  In  the  United  States  the 
last  is  most  certainly  the  case.  Here  the  officers  of 
government  are  elected  either  mediately  or  immedi- 
ately by  the  people,  from  the  President  even  to  the 
Constable.  They  hold  their  offices  for  specified 
times,  and  receive  stated  salaries  in  compensation 
for  their  services.  Certain  rules  are  prescribed  to 
them  for  their  direction ,  which  rules,  if  violated, 
have  prescribed  a  mode  of  punishment,  and  there- 
by have  unequivocally  fixed  the  stamp  oi  servant 
upon  them.  Can  any  man  of  common  sense,  then 
pretend  to  say,  that  the  government  is  not  the  crea* 
ture  of  the  people's  zvill;  that  the  administrators  of  it 
are  not  the  people's  servants }  Whenever  they  cease 
to  be  so,  they  become  masters  and  tyrants,  and  tho 


■(  «  ) 

rights  and  liberties  of  the  pieople  cease  to  exist.  It 
is  therefore  the  duty  of  the  people  of  these  states, 
as  well  as  their  interest,  to  watch  with  the  most 
vigilant  care,  the  actions  of  their  public  servants. 
Jealousy  is  the  soul  of  republicanism.  Implicit 
confidence  is  the  parent  of  tyranny.  Though  it  has 
often  been  asserted,  that  ingratitude  is  the  crime' of 
republics  ;  yet  its  opposite,  gratitude,  joined  with 
confidence,  has  been  the  most  destructive  to  their 
interests.  Some  particular  individual  of  eminent 
talents,  from  a  combination  of  fortuitous  circum- 
stances, had  it  in  his  power  to  render  essential  ser- 
vice to  his  country.  His  countrymen  think  they 
cannot  be  over  grateful ;  they  confer  power  upon 
liim,  and  they  place  implicit  confidence  in  his  talents 
and  administration.  Power  has  an  inevitable  ten- 
dency to  corrupt  the  heart,  or  at  least  to  blind  the 
understanding  of  the  generality  of  men.  He  that 
was  before,  a  hero  and  a  patriot,  becomes  a  tyrant 
over  those  he  had  formerly  benefited.  Vigilance 
then  becomes  the  first  duty  of  every  republican. 
Almost  numberless  are  the  instances  that  could  be 
adduced  to  shew  the  propriety  of  this  maxim  ;  I 
shall  only  adduce  two :  that  of  Venice,  and  Hol- 
land. There  we  shall  behold  the  servants  of  the 
people  become  their  masters,  by  the  means  of 
confidence  and  gratitude. 

The  Venetians  first  adopted  a  pure  democracy. 
They  chose  from  the  body  of  the  people,  a  tribune  for 
each  island ;  and  this  election  took  place  annually. 
These  tribunes  regulated  the  private  concerns  of  the 
people ;  while  the  public  business  was  transacted  by  a 
general  assembly.  This  government  existed  for  up- 
wards of  two  hundred  years.  At  length  the  tribunes 
endeavoured  to  exercise  despotic  power,  each  in  his 
own  island.  Instead  of  changing  the  men  as  they 
ought  to  have  done,  thev  changed  the  form    and 

G 


C  ^0   } 

Trature  of  the  Government.  At  the  instigation  of  the 
Patriarch  of  Grado,  they  elected  a  man  universally 
•beloved,  to.be  Duke  of  Venice  ;  and  to  this  office 
they  attached  an  almost  unlimited  power. 

Thus  fell  the  democracy  of  Venice.  "  A  plan,, 
says  M.  De  La  Croix,  which  may  rank  in  point  of 
wisdom  with  the  most  perfect  which  we  find  in 
antiquity;  and  while  the  islanders  had  the  good 
sense  to  adhere  to  it  they  wxre  happy  and  peacea- 
ble." They  did  not  remain  so  long,,  under  the  ducal 
Government..  Paul  Luke  Anafeste,  the  first  Duke,, 
approved  himself  worthy  of  their  choice.  Exten- 
sive power  is  dangerous  to  be  entrusted  in  a  single- 
individual.  This  was  verified  in  Urso  their  third" 
Duke,  or  Doge.  After  having  been  triumphant 
over  the  Lombards,  he  became  proud  of  his  success ;; 
ruled  with  severity  and  injustice  ;  and  at  last  fell  as 
sacrifice  to  the  vengeance  of  an  injured  people. 
In  other  words,  he  forgot  he  was  a  servant,  and  inr. 
attempting,  to  become  a  mastery  he  was  put  to  deatb 
in  his  palace. 

An  annually  elected  chief,,  under  the  title  of 
"  Master  of  the  military  Jorces''  next  was  agreed* 
upon ;  but  John  Fabricatio,  the  fifth  who  held  fhat 
office,  had  his  eyes  put  out  for  his  attrociou& 
Gonduct.- 

Again  the  Venetians  resorted  to  a  perpetual  chiefs 
and  again  they  were  deceived.  Theodat,  this  fourth 
Doge  had  his  eyes  put  out,,  at  the  instigation  of  a 
demagogue  named  Galla.  Brondelo  who  succeeded 
him,  underwent  the  same  barbarous  treatment,  one- 
year  after,  and  was  besides  sent  into  exile. 

At  length  two  tribunes  were  associated  with*  the 
Doge,  without  whose  concurrence  he  was  to  da 
nothing.  To  this  wholesome  restraint  Mongario,,. 
the  sixteenth  Doge  w^ould  not  submit;  and  he  alsoj^ 


(     51     ) 

who   wanted  to  be  master  alone,  Avas  involved  in 
•perpetual  darkness.  i 

The  same  form  of  Government  still  continued; 
■and  the  Doge  was  still  elected  for  life.  Doge  Mau- 
rice after  he  had  governed  with  propriety  for  upwards 
of  twenty  years,  proposed  to  have  his  son-  John 
associated  with  him  in  the  Government.  Chatitude 
induced  the  Venetians  to  comply,  and  a  dangerous 
precedtnt  was  thus  introduced.  John  claimed  th<5 
•same  privilege  for  his  son ;  and  at  last  for  their  crimes 
Ihey  were  both  expelled  from  their  power  and  theiif 
country. 

The  limits  of  this  publication  will  t^ot  permit  me 
to  give  even  an  abridged  detail  of  all  the  various 
revolutions  in  the  Venetian  state,  Let  us  therefore 
come  to -that  period  of  their  history,  when  they  were 
conquered  by  the  French  republic.  By  contrasting 
the  nature  of  their  then  Government,  with  what  it 
was  in  the  origin  of  the  republic,  an  awful,  but 
convincing  lesson  will  be  .presented  to  our  view. 

I  shall  just  premise,  that  for  a  very  long  period, 
xifter  the  institution  of  the  office  of  Doge,  the  people 
still  retained  their  republican  character,  and  were 
acknowledged  the  source  of  sovereignty.  Every 
alteration  of  the  form,  -and  every  revol'^tion  in  the 
Government  served  only  to  curtail  the  rights  of  the 
people ;  until  at  last  an  hereditary  body  of  nobility 
arose,  who,  having  been  originally  servants  of  the 
people,  deprived  that  people  of  every  vestige  of 
liberty.  Thirteen  hundred  nobles  retained  the  whole 
power  of  the  people.  From  among  those,  were 
elected  by  themselves,  the  Senate,  the  College  (or 
Supreme  Council  of  State)  the  Procurators  of  St» 
Mark,  the  Council  of  ten,  and  the  Inquisitors  of 
State. 

Thus  were  the  people  governed  by  a  multitude  of 
tyrants.     "  Under  one   despot,"  says  Voltaire,    **  I 


(     52     ) 

need  only  stand  up  against  a  wall  when  I  sec  him 
coming  by,  or  prostrate  myself,  or  knock  my  fore- 
head against  the  ground,  according  to  the  custom  of 
the  country;  but  under  a  body  of  perhaps  a  hundred 
despots,  I  may  be  obliged  to  repeat  this  ceremony 
a  hundred  times  a  day,  which  is  not  a  little  trouble- 
some to  those  who  are  not  very  nimble." 

The  people  under  this  perfection  of  aristocracy 
were  absolute  slaves.  The  Freedom  of  Speech  was 
unknown;  as  for  the  Press,  that  was  totally  prohi- 
bited. The  Government  was  a  complicated  heap 
of  absurdities  and  oppression  ;  but,  of  all  the 
engines  of  oppression,  that  of  the  inquisitors  of 
state  was  the  most  detestable.  "  The  authority  of 
those  inquisitors  is  so  much  the  more  redoubtable, 
as  the  executions  which  follow  their  sentences  are 
always  performed  in  prison.  Sometimes  the  criminal 
is  interred  there,  and  sometimes  the  body  is  exposed 
between  the  columns  of  Saint  Mark,  with  a  writ- 
ten lable,  containing  but  very  vague  words,  such  as, 
for  a  serious  crime  against  the  state '^"^ 

The  same  author  observes  concerning  this  tremen- 
dous engine  of  cruelty ; — '^  These  inquisitors  have 
the  key  of  the  hollow  trunks  of  the  palace  of  the 
Doge,  into  wdiich  can  be  thrown,  through  the  mouths 
of  the  lions,  which  serve  as  openings,  billets  to 
reveal  secrets  interesting  to  the  republic. 

"  Who  can  consider,  without  trembling,  a  recital 
of  such  secret  vengeance,  of  such  mysterious  acts  of 
cruelty }  Wherefore  do  they  form  the  basis  of  its 
Government?  It  is  because  that  Government  is  itself 
founded  on  injustice  !  It  has  been  established  as  I 
have  shewn,  without  the  consent  of  the  people  ; 
and  the  authority  now  enjoyed  by  the  nobles,  exclu- 

*  M.  De  La  Croix's  Review  of  Constiiutions. 


(     53     ) 

sively,  is  an  usurpation  on  the  multitude,  and  on  the 
chief  of  the  republic." 

Contrast  this  with  the  quotation  at  the  beginning 
of  this  article,  from  the  same  author.  Contemplate 
what  must  have  been  the  situation  of  the  Venetians 
for  the  first  two  hundred  years  of  their  existence, 
under  their  simple  democracy,  with  that  under  the 
aristocracy.  Survey  the  various  revolutions  and 
changes  which  their  Government  underwent 
before  their  public  servants  became  their  haugh- 
ty masters;  their  despotic  lords.  A  Govern* 
ment  where  the  people  were  of  no  more  account, 
in  a  political  view,  than  "  the  dust  of  the  balance," 
or  "the  chaff  before  the  wind."  Examine  the 
latent  causes  of  so  melancholy  a  change.  Care- 
lessness, ignorance,  and  worse  than  all;  unlimited 
confidence. 

If  these  things  are  attended  to,  we  can  hardly 
i^uppose,  that  the  people  have  made  a  change  for 
the  worse.  Let  the  Austrian  Government  rule  as 
they  please,  it  is  utterly  impossible  that  the  people 
can  be  more  wretched,  or  enjoy  less  liberty  than 
under  their  own  aristocracy.  "  This  however  is  not 
meant  as  any  justification  of  the  French  Govern- 
ment, for  delivering  them  up  to  the  power  of  the 
German  Emperor.  That  is  assuredly  a  detestable 
policy,  which  can,  on  any  pretence  whatever,  make 
a  transfer  of  a  whole  people,  as  if  they  were  so  many 
oxen  or  hogs.  It  was  the  business,  nay  the  duty  of 
the  French,  either  to  leave  them  the  sole  choice  of  a 
new  form  of  Government,  or  let  them  alone.  The 
very  utmost  they  had  any  right  to  do,  even  as  con- 
querors, was  to  take  such  precautionary  measures, 
as  to  prevent  them  renewing  hostilities. 
.  Much  has  been  said,  by  a  certain  party  in  this 
country  about  the  fate  of  Venice.  Often  .have 
the   people  been   called    upon    to  avoid,    and   to 


.(      54     ) 

look  With  horror  on  the  degraded  fate  of  that  mis* 
named  republic.  The  mode  of  conduct  is  in  their 
own  power.  Let  them  remember^  that  they  are  the 
sovereign;  that  their  magistrates  and  legislators  are^ 
their  servants  ;  that  it  those  individuals  act  wrong, 
to  change  the  men,  but  not  the  constitution.  Let 
them  also  be  virtuous,  and  remember  that  argu- 
ments founded  upon  justice  and  truth,  are  the  surest 
and  best  weapons  which  can  be  wielded  against 
encroachments  upon  their  liberties.  Let  the  Press 
be  Free,  and  the  citizens  of  these  states  need  not  fear 
the  despotism  of  aristocracy,  nor  the  degraded  fate 
of  Venice. 

Let  us  now  turn  our  attention  to  Holland ;  for  that 
loo  had  has  its  lamentations  poured  forth,  for  the 
overthrow  of  its  late  Government. 

The  revolt  of  the  Llollanders  from  the  Spanish 
Government,  about  the  middle  of  the  sixteenth 
century,  is  sufficiently  known.  The  gratitude  to  the 
house  of  Orange,  for  the  essential  services  rendered 
to  the  republic,  during  its  revolutionary  war  is  also 
known.  This  very  republican  gratitude,  added  to 
the  ambition  of  the  succeeding  princes  of  that 
family,  annihilated  every  thin^  of  freedom  but  the 
name.  The  encroachments  of  sovereign  authority, 
and  of  aristocratic  power,  were  long  exerted  before 
they  attained  their  ends.  "Ultimately,  however,  they 
proved  successful  over  democracy  ;  and  a  hereditary 
chief  magistrate  was  at  length  seated  on  the  Stadt- 
holderen  throne.  He  who  was  originally  the  first 
servant  of  the  people,  became  the  king  and  the 
tyrant  of  the  country.  Various  efforts  wxre  made 
to  overthrow  this  ill  timed  concession;  but  foreign 
troops,  and  foreign  generals,  always  in  the  pay  of  the 
Stadtholder  prevented  it.  When  in  the  year  1785,v 
they  had  nearly  accomplished  their  liberty;  the 
country  w^as  over-run  by  a  foreign  force,  under  the 


(     55     ) 

bravado  Duke  of  Brunswick,  of  proclamation 
memory.  Then  the  chains  were  re-rlvited;  and  it 
was  not  until  the  campaign  of  1795-6,  that  the 
Hollanders  regained  their  freedom. 

Whether  they  are  now  better,  or  worse,  is  not  for 
me  to  say;  nor  will  it  in  either  case  affect  my  argu- 
ment. The  Government  was  originally  democratic, 
and  the  officers  of  the  Government  were  the  servants 
of  the  people.  This  Government  became  aristo- 
cratic, and  its  officers  became  the  masters  of  that 
people. . 

From  what  has  been  said  upon  the  propositions 
stated  in  chapter  4th,  it  appears,  1st.  That  the  go- 
vernment of  the  United  States  being  a  delegation 
from  the  people ;.  no  power  over  the  operations  of  the 
mind,  or  controul  of  public  opinion  could  be  dele- 
gated to  them.  Were  such  a  thing  possible,  it  would 
be  a  ridiculous  absurdity.  As  well  might  I  say  un- 
to my  neighbour,  "  I  will  confer  Almighty  power 
upon  you;  you  shall  guide  and  direct  all  the  opera- 
tions of  my  mind,  and  every  thought  shall  be  regu- 
lated as  you  please.'* 

2d.  We  have  seen  that  governments  are  bound, 
or  at  least  pretend  to  be  regulated  by  Constitutions ; 
and  that  the  United  States  have  a  legitimate  and  au- 
thentic instrument  which  bears  that  name.  The 
dangerous  nature  of  precedent  has  been  pointed  out, 
and  the  encroachments  upon  natural  rights  under  the 
British  government  have  been  traced  to  this  source. 
Its  violation  of  moral  principle,  has  also  been  notic- 
ed, particularly  in  the  British  doctrine  of  libel ; 
where  truth  is  not  only  punished  as  a  crime,  but  it  is 
even  daringly  asserted  that  the  libel  is  aggravated  by 
being  true.  The  violation  of  the  Directorial  Consti- 
tution of  France  has  been  exposed.  It  has  been 
shewn,  that  these  oppressions  also,  went  upon  the 
principle  of  government  having  a  right  to  direct  the 


(     56    ) 

public  opinion;  the  absurdity  and  injustice  of  which^ 
I  hope  is  also  evident. 

3d.  We  have  also  found,  that  justice  being  univer- 
sal, and  immutable,  must  be  of  equal  obligation  up- 
on the  governors,  as  upon  the  governed.  Conse- 
quently, moral  evil,  never  can  be  political  good. 

4th.  It  has  been  shewn,  that  the  legal  governors 
or  magistrates  of  a  country,  are  the  people's  ser- 
vants, and  that  it  is  only  by  usurpation  they  can  ever 
become  masters.  The  governments  of  Venice  and 
Holland,  have  been  cited  as  warning  examples  to 
the  citizens  of  the  United  States,  to  guard  with  un- 
ceasing vigilance  the  actions  of  their  public  servants; 
lest  as  in  those  countries,  the  servants  should  be- 
come masters. 

The  first  deduction  which  offers  itself  from  those 
reasonings  is,  that  in  no  case  whatever,  can  govern- 
ment have  a  right  to  interfere  in  the  direction  of 
public  opinion.  The  next  deduction  is,  that  if  go- 
vernment does  interfere,  it  saps  the  foundations  of 
morality.  And  lastly,  that  it  is  the  interest,  as  well 
as  duty  of  the  people  to  prevent,  or  check  such  at- 
tempts in  the  government  ;  otherwise  their  liberty, 
their  happiness;  nay,  all  that  they  hold  dear  to  them 
as  rational  beings,  is  in  danger  of  being  wrested 
from  them. 


(     57     ) 


CHAP.  VIII. 

Violent   revolutions  to  be  dreaded. — Free  discussion 
favorable  to  virtue,  and  the  only  real  preservative 
against  them, — Fictitious  Signatures  pernicious. — 
Spies  and  informers, — Multiplication  of  oaths  dan- 
gerous to  morality, — Example  in  illustration, 

T-  .) 
HE  enormities  committed  during  the  revolu- 
tionary fervour  of  the  French,  have  been  loudly 
reprobated,  by  the  enemies  of  all  reformation  ;  and 
they  have  even  been  deplored  by  the  friends  to  the 
liberties  of  mankind.  Actions  have  certainly  taken 
place,  which  cannot  upon  any  principle  of  justice 
be  defended.  No  doubt  also,  but  many  of  those 
occurrences  have  been  exaggerated.  It  is  not  a 
little  remarkable,  that  all  who  have  written  con- 
cerning the  massacres  and  executions  of  that  nation, 
seem  to  have  forgotten  the  cause  from  which  they 
briginated ;  or,  if  they  did  not,  they  have  used  every 
artifice  to  conceal  it. 

Far  be  it  from  me  to  take  the  opposite  ^extreme ; 
and  to  attempt  a  defence  of  that  which  is  indefen- 
sible. It  ought  however  to  be  remembered ;  that 
"  oppression  makes  a  wise  vian  mad.'*  If  it  some- 
times has  this  effect  upon  an  individual,  it  may  also 
operate  upon  any  given  number  of  the  human 
species. 

■  At  all  events,  violent  revolutions  are  to  be  dreaded. 
When  once  the  usual  bonds  of  human  society  are 
broken,  bad  men  are  always  in  readiness  to  exercise 
their  pernicious  talents.  It  is  true,  that  anarchy 
cannot  long  "subsist,  as  it  carries  the  seeds  of  its 
immediate  destruction  along  with  it;  but  the  effects 
may  long  be  felt,  after  the  cause  has  ceased  to  exist. 
Violent  revolutions  are'  like  the  destructive  tornado, 

II 


(      53      ) 

which  alike  overturns  the  cottage  and  the  palace; 
which  overwhelms  all  within  its  vortex  in  indiscri- 
minate dismay  and  destruction.  If  such  be  their 
nature  and  tendency;  how^  ought  they  to  be  guarded 
against  ? 

One  of  the  most  prominent  forerunners  of  violent 
revolution,  is  a  total  suppression  of  the  Liberty  of 
Speech  and  Press;  the  Governmenfusurping  the  sole 
direction  of  public  opinion.  This  is  dangerous  in 
every  kind  of  Government ;  but  more  preposterous, 
as  well  as  more  dangerous  in  a  republican  country, 
than  in  any  other.  If  in  a  democratic  republic,  the 
people  are  prevented  from  a  free  investigation  of  the 
actions  of  their  public  servants,  it  will  inevitably  be 
productive  of  the  following  effects. 

Either  it  will  drive  the  people  into  immediate  acts 
of  violence  against  the  Government;  or,  if  they 
silently  submit,  it  w  ill  ultimately  deprive  the  people 
of  that  free  energy  of  thought,  w^ord,  and  action, 
which  the  cousciousness  of  liberty  and  independence 
never  fail  to  inspire.  The  Government  will  then 
cease  to  direct  the  public  concerns  of  free  men;  and 
they  will  rule  over  a  nation  of  degraded  slaves. 
Both  of  these  events  ought  to  be  equally  dreaded  by 
the  good  politician ;  because  both,  in  the  end,  must 
terminate  in  violent  and  tumultuous  revolution. 

Though  it  be  true,  as  has  been  observed  by  Lock, 
that< — ^^  There  remains  still  inherent  in  the  people,  a 
supreme  power  to  remove  or  alter  the  legislature, 
when  they  find  the  legislative  act  contrary  to  the 
trust  reposed  in  them;  for,  when  such  trust  is 
abused,  it  is  thereby  forfeited,  and  devolves  to  those 
who  give  it;"  I  say,  though  this  be  true,  the  prin- 
ciple is  always  to  be  applied  w^ith  caution.  If  this 
advice  is  due  to  the  people;  another  piece  of  advice 
is  also  due  to  the  Government;  that  is,  /o  avoid 
evi'ry  thing  ivhich   may  occasion  the  necessity  of  its 


(     59     ) 

being  resorted  to.  The  Freedom  of  Speech  and 
Press  ought  in  particular  to  remain  inviolate  and 
sacred.  The  language  of  Government  should  be, 
'*  Observe  my  conduct;  you  do  well.  Report  it  as 
widely  as  possible,  provided  you  report  it  fairly  ;  you 
are  entitled  to  commendation.  But  the  heart  of 
man  unavoidably  revolts  against  the  attempt  to  cor- 
rect my  error  by  the  infliction  of  violence."* 

Here  however  I  shall  beg  leave  to  diifer  in  one 
point  from  this  respectable  author.  He  says, 
"Report  it  as  widely  as  possible,  provided  you 
report  itfairtyT  Now  a  thing  may  be  reported 
which  is  not  really  true^  and  yet  it  may  h^  fairlij 
reported,  from  the  information  the  person  has  re- 
ceived; therefore  report  it  as  you  believe  it  to  be. 
No  one  can  have  a  right  to  report  a  falsehood,  but 
he  may  be  himself  deceived,  by  believing  his  infor- 
mation to  be  true.  If  he  never  reports  this,  he 
continues  in  error;  but  by  giving  it  publicity,  he 
stands  the  chance  of  being  undeceived. 

A  free  promulgation  of  facts  and  opinions,  would 
soon  be  perceived  to  be  the  strongest  preservative 
against  violent  revolutions.  It  would  be  doubly 
advantageous  to  the  interests  of  a  Republican  Go- 
vernment. That  Government  which  the  people 
have  chosen,  may  fairly  be  supposed  the  constant 
object  of  their  solicitude  and  care.  It  can  hardly 
be  imagined,  that  the  people  will  fail  in  a  due 
respect  for  the  administrators  of  their  own  Govern- 
ment, so  long  as  they  act  with  propriety,  justice, 
and  according  to  the  Constitution.  The  members 
of  such  a  Government  are  only  elected  for  a  parti- 
cular period.  They  should  then  avoid  all  measures 
of  a  seliish  or  temporizing  nature.  If  such  laws  be 
made  to  shield  tliemselves  from  animadversion,  they 

*  Godwin. 


{     60     ) 

ought  to  recollect,  that  parties  and  power  may  change 
hands.  In  this  case,  they  might  repent  the  having 
sanctioned  Jaws  restricting  the  Freedom  of  Speech, 
and  Press.  Again,  do  the  members  of  a  Repub' 
]ican  Government  wish  to  have  the  spontaneous 
approbation  of  their  fellow^  citizens,  or  do  they  wnsh 
to  hear  the  sycophantic  adulation  of  slaves  ?  If  the 
first  be  their  w^ish,  they  will  not  restrict  the  free 
expression  of  the  public  sentiment.  If  the  last  be 
what  they  are  desirous  of;  it  may  indeed  flatter  the 
vanity  of  ignorant  tyrants ;  but  it  ought  to  be  remem- 
bered— that  they  preclude  themselves  from  knowing 
their  friends  from  their  enemies.  I  certainly  should 
not  have  told  Dionysius  the  tyrant,  that  I  thought^ 
him  a  detestable  monster,  because  it  is  probable  I 
should  have  lost  my  life.  My  opinion  however  must 
have  been  unchanged. 

The  disinterested  legislator  will  always  be  friendly 
to  the  cause  of  virtue.  He  will  know,  that  virtue 
and  republicanism  must  rise  or  fall  together.  No 
people  ever  were  ripe  for  despotism,  until  they  were 
completely  corrupted.  It  was  the  case  with  Greece, 
when  the  Romans  overpowered  it.  It  was  the  case 
with  the  Romans,  when  Caesar  became  their  master. 
The  real  friends  of  the  Government  of  the  United 
States,  will  then  do  every,  thing  in  their  power  to 
promote  and  encourage  virtue  among  the  people. 
This,  and  this  alone,  will  give  the  Government 
stability;  and  prevent  the  dread,  or  necessity  of 
violent  revolution;  that  is,  if  the  Government  are 
also  virtuous. 

If  this  principle  be  acknowledged,  how  cautious 
ought  Governments  to  be  in  enacting  laws  which 
may  in  their  operation  tend  to  destroy  virtue  among 
the  people }  Whatever  in  the  smallest  degree,  tends 
to  the  injury  of  morality,  should  both  by  individuals 
and  Governments   be  avoided.     Hence  any  thing 


(  61  ) 

A^hich  may  occasion  the  multiplication  of  fictitious 
signatures,  oaths  or  tests ^  spies  ox  informers,  pw^~it 
to  be  guarded  against  with  the  most  studious  care. 

Fictitious  signatures  are  of  no  importance  when 
attached  to  any  other^  kind  of  publications,  thart- 
those  where  public  or  private  individuals  are  charged: 
with  improprieties.  They  are  however  totally  owing, 
to  the  checks  which  have  been  from  time  to  time 
imposed  upon  the  free  expression  of  public  opinion* 
Consequently  they  engender  pusilanimity,  in  sincerity* 
and  anonimous  assassiqation  of  character.  Sedition- 
laws  will  aiw^ays  increase  this  evil.  Teach  men  tb'e^ 
necessity  of  only  speaking  truth.  Shew  them  that 
they  may  do  it  without  fear,  and  thi;s  evil  so  fre- 
quently, and  sometimes  justly  complained  of,  will 
cease  to  exist.  If  the  malicious  slanderer  still 
retreat  behind  this  mysterious  veil,  let  his  publica- 
tions be  treated  with  that  contempt  they  so  justly 
deserve.  Contemptuous  silence  will  soon  impress 
him  sufficiently  wdth  an  idea  of  his  own  littleness.. 
On  the  contrary,  the  man  who  has  nothing  to  relate- 
but  what  he  believes  to  be  truth ;  why  should  he 
conceal  his  name?  He  may  be  mistaken,  he  may  be 
misinformed,  he  may  have  drawn  erronious  con- 
clusions^ if  he  has,  he  may  be  set  rights  and-like 
an  honest  man,  let  him  acknowledge  his  error.,        ^ 

In  order  to  carry  sedition  law^s  fully  into  effect, 
spies  and  informers  must  be  made  use  of  ;  nay,  they 
must  be  encouraged.  Wherever  such  wretches 
exist,  and  where  they  are  employed  by  the  hopes  of 
pecuniary  reward,  liberty  cannot  live.  The  confi- 
dence of  friendship,  the  inviolability  of  domestic 
conversation,  and  the  unguarded  effusions  ot  the 
moments  of  hilarity  ;  all  become  so  many  snares  for 
the  honest  and  unsuspecting  citizen.  As  for  the 
cautious  villain,  he  is  on  his  guard,  and  will  alvvay* 
be  certain  to  escape.     That  such  wretches  are  to  be 


{      ^2      ) 

found  in  all  countries,  is   not  more   disgraceful  to'' 
human  nature;  than  it  is  true.     The  Governments 
who  are  so  degraded  as  to  employ   people  of  this 
description,  are  sunk   low  indeed.     They   become 
dishonoured  by    a  certain  degree   of  intimacy  and 
familiarity,  with  which  they   are  obliged   to  treat' 
them.     Such  Governments  as  have  so  far  forgot  their  ' 
dignity  as  to  employ  spies,  have  always  found  them- 
selves  in  this  degraded  situation;  and    as  soon   as 
possible  have  shaken  them  off.     Instances  are  even 
upon  record,  where  the  informer  and  spy   has  paid 
the    forfeit  of  his  crimes,  at   the    expence    of  his 
life  ;  and  that  even  by  the  sentence  of  that  Govern- 
ment  Ire    had  served.     Watt,  who  was  hanged  and 
beheaded   at  'Edinburgh    for  high  treason,  on    the- 
15th  October    1794,    is   an  instance    of  this   kind. 
He  had  been  employed  as  a  political   spy,  by   the' 
Lord  Advocate  of  Scotland,  at  the  desire  of  Henry'' 
Dundass  secretary  of   state.       Upon   his    trial,  he* 
subpoenaed  the  Lord    Advocate  as  an   exculpatory 
evidence.     It  then  appeared  upon  his  examination/ 
that  he  had  been  in  the  habit   of  receiving  intelli- 
gence  from  Watt;  and    that   at  one  time  he  had' 
paid  him  thirty  pounds  sterling  for  a  piece  of  infor- 
mation.    It  also  further  appeared,  that  it  was  about 
the  /;mY%  that  they  finally  differed.     Watt  demanded 
a  thousand  pounds  sterling  for  discovering  that  plot, 
of  which  he  himself  was  the  chief  promoter.     The 
sum  was  refused,  his  house  was  searched,  the   pre- 
tended plot   was  discovered,  and  he  fell  under  the 
vengeance   of  Government,  unpitied  by  ail  parties. 
Mav  this  forever  be  a  warnins:  to  such  characters, 
and  teach  them  the  necessity  of  honesty  ! 

Such  being  the  case,  it  must  be  evident,  that  laws 
which  requir<3  such  means  to  carry  them  into  effect, 
must  be  extremely  uncertain  in  their  operations,  as 
well  as  the  punishments  frequently  unjust.    He  who 


(     63      ) 

can  descend  so  low,  will  hardly  boggle  at  a  false  oath. 
Few  will  be  ambitious  of  such  an  employment, 
Excepting  such  as  are  of  the  most  abandoned. cha- 
racters ;  lost  to  every  sense  of  honesty  and  honour* 
Perha^ps  a,  few- individuals  might  be.  found  in  any 
countjr}^j  who  might  undertake  such  an  employment, 
from  mistaken  notions  of  patriotism.  If  such  are 
to  be  found,  they  that  moment  cease,  to  h^.  patrioi^Sy 
and  become. ^/^£eA\  Wherever  they  are  known,  their 
company  ^nd  can versation  will  be  avoided,  and  they 
will  be.  d;€;?.pised  and  detested.  Even  in  rii^/r,  where 
spies  are  sp  frequently  made  use  of,  and  where  the 
office!  is,  thought  the  most  excusable;,  even  there 
they  are  h\it  half  trifstt^d  hy  their  employers.  As 
for  traitors  to  the.  cause  they  havQ  espoused,  j  tlie 
fate  of  an  Arnold  and  a  Dumourier  are  sufficient 
exaiTjples  of  the  light  in  vyhich-such  characters  are 
behejd' — of  the  way  in  which  they  niay  expect  to  be 
treated,  even  by  those  they  have  served.  The  ojie 
never,  respected,  nor  entrusted  with  any  ijuportant 
comqiand;  the.,(?/Aer  despised  and  detested — drivea 
from  country  to  country,  a  wandering  vagabond; 
refused  permission  to  reside  in  the  territories  of  those 
very  princes  whose  cause  he  had  served. 

In  most  cases  the  same  fate  will  almost  inevitably 
follow  spies  and  informers^  when  the  ends  for  which 
they  were  employed  are  attained.  He  who  to  serve 
me,  has  deceived  another,  how  am  I  sure  but  he 
may  deceive  me  ?  If  such  is  the  fate  of  those  cha- 
racters from  their  "  employers,  how  must  they  be 
despised  and  detested  by  their  fellowc-itizens  ?  "  We 
disapprove  of  the  superior,  however  well  informed 
he  may  be,  who  undertakes  by  chastisement  to 
induce  me  to  alter  my  opinion  or  vary  in  my  choice ; 
but  we  disapprove  still  more,  and  toe  do  zvell, 
of  the  man  who  officiates  as  the  ARGUS  of  my 
tyrant,  who  reports  my  conduct,  not  for  the  purpose 


t     64     ) 

of  fetictea^mg  my  wisdom  and  prudence,  not  for  the 
purpose  of  instructing  others,  but  that  he  may  bring 
down  upon  me  the  brute,  the  slavish  and  exaspe- 
rating arm  of  power."* 

,  Oaths  and  tests  are  another  inevitable  consequence 
of  Sedition  laws.  They  are  in  all  cases  whatever, 
of  the  utmost  injury  to  truth,  the  only  foundation  of 
all  morality.  To  this  source  may  be  justly  attri- 
buted, the  prevalence  of  falsehood  and  insincerity 
amongst  every  class  of  society.  Among  the  les^ 
informed  part  of  mankind,  it  i^  most  notoriously  so. 
How  often  do  we  hear  from  such,  when  charged 
with  having  related  a  falsehood, — "  Why  sure  you 
know  I  was  not  upon  oath  :'*  or,  "  I  did  not  sxveat 
it  was  true."  AVhat  sort  of  morality  is  this?  Hov^ 
contrary  to  the  spirit  of  the  gospel,  and  the  strict 
and  positive  command  of  Jesus  Christ?  *' I  say 
unto  you,  smear  not  at  ally  but  let  your  yea  be  yea, 
and  your  nay,  nay."  He  knew  the  pernicious  ten- 
dency of  oaths,  and  therefore  prohibited  his  foll6wers 
from  making  use  of  them.  Iknow  the  generality 
of  christians  say,  that  this  injunction  is  only  against 
profane  swearing  in  common  discourse.  But  it 
ought  to  be  recollected,  that  this  vice  was  already 
prohibited  under  the  law.  "  Thou  shalt  not  take  the 
name  of  the  Lord  thy  God  in  vain."  Tins  prohi- 
bited vain  swearing  in  common  conversation,  and 
one  of  the  most  respectable  and  virtuous  denomi- 
nations of  christians  in  this  country  are  of  this 
opinion,  viz.  the  Friends. 

Tlie  pernicious  tendency  of  oaths,  is  seen  and  felt 
in  a  variety  of  instances  in  private  life,  and  these 
occur  almost  every  day.  The  tongue  of  slander^ 
the  impositions  of  trade  and  traffic,  ^re  all  to  be 
attributed  to  this  tremendous  evil.  Even  servants 
V 

♦  Godwin. 


(  ^5  ) 

are  taught  to  deny  their  masters  and  mistresses 
though  they  are  at  home.  Can  such  expect  their 
servants  will  always  speak  the  truth  to  them- 
selves; from,  such  an  example  taught  them  by  those 
who  ought  to  know  better?  It  is  not  my  business 
at  present  to  enquire,  whether  this  conduct  can  at 
any  time,  or  under  any  circumstances  be  proper,  it 
is  sufficient  to  shew  that  it  is  injurious  to  morality. 
After  all  the  sneers  and  satires  of  Dean  Swift  against 
this  class  of  the  Community;  the  most  pernicious 
Hnd  prominent  of  their  vices,  are  to  be  justly  attri- 
buted to  the  example  of  their  masters.  With  regard 
to  slaves^  this  is  peculiarly  the  case. 

It  may  be  asked,  "how  are  you  to  obtain  the 
truth  in  cases  of  importance,  if  oaths  are  abolished?" 
In  the  same  way  as  it  is  attained  from  the  Quakers. 
One  of  this  society  is  hardly  ever  known  to  deceive 
a  court  or  jury.  If  they  did,  their  character  would 
be  lost  amongst  their  own  society ;  and  the  law 
would  punish  them  for  perjury,  in  the  same  way 
as  it  does  those  who  swear  by  book  or  hand. 

This  however,  I  shall  omit  investigating  any  far- 
ther. If  it  is  only  acknowledged,  that  oaths  ought 
not  to  be  frequently  administered;  the  principle  for 
which  I  contend  may  be  readily  admitted.  In  Great- 
Britain  the  evil  tendency  of  the  multiplication  of 
oaths  has  been  frequently,  and  justly  complained 
of,  even  by  those  who  esteem  them  sometimes  ne- 
cessary. The  various  classes  of  manufacturers  who 
are  under  the  demon  fangs  of  the  Excise ;  are  par- 
ticularly exposed  to  temptations  oi fraud  upon  oaih^ 
and  even  to  the  swearing  o^Jalse  ones.  One  instance 
of  this  kind  I  shall  adduce  ;  not  because  it  is  a  soli- 
tary one;  but  from  its  singularity.  It  will  tend  to 
shew,  better  than  a  folio  volume  upon  the  subject, 
how  much  a  mans  morals  must  have  been  injured, 
before  he  could  have  fallen  upon  so  dangerous  and 


(     66     ) 

» immoral  a  scheme.  I  shall  just  beg  to  premise-— 
that  in  Great  Britian  every  retailer  of  foreign  spirits, 
wines,  teas  and  coffee,  are  obliged  to  make  oath 
from  time  to  time,  that  he  has  not  sold  more  than 
the  quantity  of  goods,  specified  by  him  in  a  certain 
book:  that  is,  he  must  swear  that  he  is  an  honest 
7nan  ! 

^'  I  recollect  of  hearing  an  anecdote  of  a  dealer  in 
tea,  who  was  one  of  those  apparently  austere  religi- 
ous people,  to  be  met  with  in  every  place  :  When 
the  invention  of  shopkeepers  swearing  to  the  excise 
officers  of  the  fairness  of  their  trade,  was  first  put  in 
practice,  this  man,  who  had  always  been  in  the 
practice  of  smuggling  a  little,  and  was  now  very  un- 
willing to  forego  the  advantages  thereof  on  ac- 
count of  an  oath,  set  his  invention  to  work  in  con- 
triving a  method  of  smuggling,  swearing,  and  hav- 
ing a  sound  conscience: — the  result  of  mature  deli- 
beration was,  that  on  a  Sacrament  Sunday,  he  shut 
himself  up  in  his  room,  and  after  a  long  prayer, 
made  a  solemn  oath  that  he  should  never  in  his  life 
Speak  a  true  sentence  to  a  ganger  (excise  oflicer.) 
He  ever  afterwards  considered  this  oath  of  greater 
weight  than  the  other ;  and  his  conscience  as  very 
free  from  stain,  although  he  perjured  himself  once 
every  three  months."* 

To  this  anecdote  it  may  be  perhaps,  objected, 
that  admitting  this,  it  was  an  affair  wherein  his  pe- 
cuniary interest  was  alone  concerned  ;  and  does  by 
no  means  apply  to  politics.  This  however,  is  a  sub- 
ject where  party  prejudice  is  as  strong  in  its  opera- 
tions, as  where  self  interest  is  concerned.  It  is  on^ 
ly  a  few  years  ago,  that  a  clergyman  of  the  estab- 
lished church  in  Scotland;  was  tried  for,  and  con- 

*  See  the  Bee,  publlflied  by  Dr.  Andcrfon  of  Edinburgh,  Vol. 
1.  No,  VII. — Pages,  251  and  252. 


(     67     ) 

victed  of  perjury,  and  stood  in  the  pillory  for  the 
same :  And  this  was  for  swearing  he  was  qualified 
to  give  his  vote  for  a  member  of  Parliament,  when  he 
was  not.  Such  are  some  of  the  consequences  of  the 
multiplication  of  oaths. 


CHAP.  IX. 


Danger  of  Government  interjerlng  in  the  direction  of 
public  opinion.— Its  incapability  of  doing  so,  de- 
duced fvm  examples  drawn  from  the  History  of 
several  proscribed  opinions. — Persecution  of  the 
Protestants. — Of  the  Presbyterians. — Old  French 
Government,  their  Jealousy. — Attempts  of  the  Bri- 
tish Government  in  America. — Trial  of  John  Peter 
Zeiiger. — In  Britain,  Wllks,  Junius,  &V. 


E 


I  VERY  Government  however  constituted,  or 

whatever  be  its  form,  is  always  possessed  of  an  ex- 
tensive influence  among  the  people.  Although  it 
be  true,  that  Government  depends  for  its  chief,  if 
not  its  only  support,  upon  public  opinion;  yet  it 
will  always  have  a  very  considerable  share  in  the 
formation,  and  direction  thereof.  This  arises  from 
the  unavoidable  patronage  w^iich  it  seems  necessary 
to  confer  upon  it;  or  at  least,  which  seems  pretty 
generally  thought  so  to  be.  It  may  thence  be  obvi- 
ous, that  throwing  any  additional  weight  into  this 
already  preponderating  scale,  must  be  extremely 
improper,  and  highly  dangerous.  To  guard  the 
Government  by  Sedition  laws,  is  giving  to  it  the 
power  of  at  least  attempting  to  direct  the  opinions 
of  the  people.  It  gives  to  it  the  authority  of  deter- 
mining what  the  people  shall  say  concerning  them. 
It  is  not  falsehood  Xh'^t  it  will  guard  against;  other- 


(      68      ) 

wise /a//OTy  would  be  equally  punishable;  equally 
a  libel.  The  flattering  sycophant  will  always  escape 
the  censure  of  •Government ;  while  the  honest  man 
who  boldly  speaks  disagreeable  truths,  will  fall  a 
victim  to  his  sincerity,  and  patriotism.  Not  unfre- 
quently,  the  flatterer  will  be  rewarded  for  his  false- 
hood. Like  honest  Mordecai,  those  who  refuse  to 
bow  down  to  proud  Haman,  are  always  sure  to  give 
oflence  to  the  Satellites  of  power;  and  it  is  but  sel- 
dom that  an  Ahasuerus  is  to  be  found  to  punish  the 
haughty  minister.  The  injury  to  the  interests  of  mo- 
rality are  incalculable ;  because  its  great  and  only 
foundation,  truth,  is  thus  sapped;  nay,  it  is  over- 
thrown. In  trials  for  Sedition,  unbiassed  decisions 
may  be  given;  but  they  are  hardly  to  be  expected. 
The  Judges  who  owe  their  appointment  to  the  exe- 
cutive branch  of  the  Government,  will  generally 
feel  influenced  in  such  cases,  even  though  men  of 
the  strictest  honor  in  every  other.  Men  during  the 
time  of  public  ferment,  generally  espouse  one  side 
or  other.  It  is  not  often  that  characters,  who  dif- 
fer in  opinion  from  administration  are  selected  upon 
such  trials.  In  this  case,  how  are  impartial  verdicts 
to  be  expected?  They  are  called  upon  to  decide, 
upon  what  ?  On  sentiments  they  have  already  de- 
clared themselves  enemies  to.  But  supposing  the 
truth  is  allowed  to  be  given  in  evidence;  it  may 
only  be  opinions^  how  are  their  truth  or  falsehood  to 
be  determined?  A  decision  in  this  case,  would  be 
as  absurd  as  deciding  which  was  the  most  palatable 
food,  agreeable  drink,  or  beautiful  colour.  A  par- 
ticular act  of  the  administration  appears  to  me  un- 
just, and  because  I  tell  my  opinion  to  my  neighbour, 
write  it  to  my  friend,  or  communicate  it  to  my 
fellow-citizens  through  the  medium  of  the  Press, 
therefore  must  I  be  punished;  not  because  I  have 
done  evil,  but  because  I  have  oflFended  an  individu- 


(     69     ) 

al  high  in  office  !  Ixt  common  sense,  if  law  does 
not,  forbid  such  absurdity.  However  such  pro- 
ceedings may  for  a  time  be  carried  on,  there  is  a 
certain  point  beyond  which  they  cannot  go.  The 
sentiments  of  reason  and  truth  will  always  ultimate- 
ly prevail ;  those  of  an  opposite  kind,  will  be  con- 
signed to  contempt  and  eternal  oblivion.  In  vain 
may  Government  give  them  its  support;  in  vain  may 
pensioned  hirelings  or  hungy  expectants  defend  them 
with  their  prostituted  pens;  in  vain  may  the  law, 
armed  with  all  its  terrors  of  Jails,  racks,  gibbets  or 
guillotines  come  forward  to  extirpate  them  from  the 
face  of  the  earth:  If  they  be  founded  on  Justice,  if 
they  be  accordant  with  truth,  they  shall  certainly 
triumph. 

That  this  is  the  case,  history  sufficiently  shews. 
A  few  out  of  innumerable  instances,  may  not  be 
deemed  improper,  to  shew  how  illy  calculated  Go- 
vernment is  to  prescribe  the  channel  in  which  public 
opinion  shall  flow. 

Socrates  for  asserting  the  unity  of  the  Deity,  was 
put  to  death  by  the  Athenian  Government. 

The  opinions  of  the  founder  of  Christianity  were 
considered  by  the  Jewish  Government  as  destruc- 
tive both  of  church  and  state.  By  them  he  was 
deemed  a  disturber  of  the  public  peace  ;  or  in 
modern  language,  a  disorganizing  Jacobin.  A 
reward  was  offered  for  his  person,  and  he  who  had 
declared  that  "  his  kingdom  was  not  of  this  world," 
was  put  to  an  Ignominious  death,  under  the  accu- 
sation of  wanting  to  be  king  of  the  Jews. 

The  apostles  who  at  the  expence  of  their  lives 
publicly  taught  the  same  opinions,  had  all  the  force 
of  all  the  Governments  where  they  preached, 
exerted  against  them;  yet  those  opinions  at  last 
triumphed  over  this  formidable  opposition. 

After  the  establishment  of  Christianity,  and  when 


(     70     ) 

innovation  was  added  to  innovation,  and  absurdity- 
heaped  upon  absurdity  ;  vi^hen  the  original  princi- 
ples of  the  gospel  of  Jesus  were  buried  under  an 
accumulated  and  accumulating  mountain  of  super- 
stitious dogmas  :  Then  the  church  of  Rome  impi- 
ously declared  her  infallibility.  All  investigation  of 
her  doctrines,  ceremonies,  and  worship  was  prohi- 
bited and  anathematised.  Burnings,  massacres  and 
persecution  of  every  kind,  pnly  hastened  the 
downfall  of  that  proud  and  domineering  mistress 
over  the  consciences  and  reason  of  mankind.  In 
the  first  place,  they  served  to  hasten  the  period,  and 
in  the  second  to  promote  the  progress  of  the  reforma- 
tion. Her  splendid  habiliments,  sanctioned  by  time, 
were  torn  off,  and  she  was  exposed  naked  to  an  asto- 
nished world  in  all  her  native  filthiness  and  defor- 
mity. Still  diminishing  in  consequence  and  power; 
we. have  seen  her  chief  driven  from  his  throne,  and  the 
most  enlightened  parts  of  the  world  have  been  those 
where  the  doctrines  of  the  reformation  prevailed. 

Notwithstanding  the  unlimited  power  of  the  Star 
Chamber  and  of  the  High  Commission  Court  in 
England  under  the  reign  of  Charles  the  first,  still 
it  could  not  stifle  the  complaints  of  the  people,  nor 
could  it  prevent  the  progress  of  republicanism,  and 
the  destruction  of  the  hierarchy,  aristocracy,  and 
monarchy  of  that  country.  .  And  no  sooner  were  the 
people  convinced  by  occular  demonstration  of  the 
tyranny  of  Cromwell,  than  the  same  all  powerful 
operation  of  opinion  had  force  enough  to  make  the 
usurper  tremble  for  his  life  3  and  even  after  his 
death,  to  restore  monarchy  again.  What  I  here 
allude  to,  w^as  a  phamphlet  published  by  Colonel 
Titus,  entitled,  "  Killing,  no  Murder  J'  "  Of  ,all 
the  pamphlets  that  came  forth  at  that  time,  or  per- 
haps of  those  that  have  since  appeared,  this  was  the 
most  eloquent  and  masterly."     "  Shall  wc,"  said  this 


C     71     ) 

popular  declaimer,  "who  would  not  suffer  the  lion 
to  invade  us,  tamely  stand  to  be  devoured  by  the 
wolf?" — "  Cromwell  read  this  spirited  treatise',  and 
was  never  seen  to  smile  more."^ 

Charles  the  second,  untaught  by  the  fate  of  his 
unfortunate  father,  attempted  to  force  Episcopacy 
upon  the  people  of  Scotland.  Bishops  and  Curates 
were  appointed  and  established,  while  the  Presby- 
terian clergy  were  thrust  from  their  churches  and 
their  Hocks.  The  people  were  commanded  to  think 
as  the  court  did ;  and  were  also  prohibited  from 
worshiping  God  in  that  way  which  they  thought 
most  acceptable  to  him.  Soldiers  were  ordered  to 
prevent  their  assembling  in  the  fields,  for  the  purpose 
of  devotion,  and  when  the  people,  driven  mad  by 
oppression  of  body,  as  w^ell  as  mind,  took  up  arms 
to  defend  themselves,  they  were  massacred  in  every 
place  where  they  could  be  found.  By  a  monument 
erected  in  the  Grey  Friars  church  yard,  at  Edin- 
burgh, it  appears ; — that  under  the  reign,  of  this 
debauched  and  dissipated  tyrant,  upwards  of  one 
hundred  noblemen  and  gentlemen,  besides  others  of 
inferior  rank  were  executed  in  Edinburgh  alone  ; 
and  that  for  no  other  reason,  than  because  they  pre- 
ferred a  Presbyterian  form  of  church  government, 
and  worship,  to  that,  of  the  present  church  of 
England  ;  and  also  for  refusing  to  acknowledge  the 
spiritual  supremacy  of  his  most  sacred  majesty!  !   ! 

Plis  brother,  James  the  second,  pursued  the  sam.e 
measures  in  order  to  re-establish  the  church  of  Rome. 
The  fate  of  both,  is  sufficiently  known.  The  name 
of  Charles  is  in  Scotland  consigned  to  that  obloquy 
which  ever  attends  the  memory  of  a  tyrant ;  and 
the  bigotted  James  was  driven  from  his  throne  and 
native  land.     The  principles  attempted  to   be  sup- 


*  GoldfmUh's  History  of  England. 


(     72     ) 

pressed  by  "  this  pair  of  hr other s^^  were  trium- 
phant ;  while  England  and  Scotland  chose  that  form 
of  religion  which  each  thought  best. 

During  the  reigns  of  these  brothers,  it  is  com- 
puted, that  upwards  of  20,000  human  beings  were 
sacrificed  upon  the  scaffold  and  the  field,  or  perished 
by  the  still  more  horrid  means  of  imprisonment, 
torture,  and  shipwreck  ;  and  all  this  in  Scotland 
alone.  After  the  battle  of  Pentland  Hill,  thirty-five 
of  the  prisoners  were  hanged  before  their  own  doors, 
and  ten  others  upon  one  gibbet,  erected  for  the 
purpose  in  Edirlburgh.  After  the  just  assassination 
(if  ever  there  was  one)  of  that  detestible  scoundrel 
Sharp,  Archbishop  of  St.  Andrews  ;  the  Presby- 
terians were  defeated  at  Both  well  Bridge  with  the 
loss  of  700  killed,  and  1200  taken  prisoners.  Of 
these  200  were  condemned  to  transportation,  and 
shipped  for  Barbadoes  ;  every  one  of  whom  perished 
by  the  w^ay.  Dragoons  were  ordered  to  scour  the 
country,  and  hundreds  were  by  them  shot  in  the 
fields,  and  butchered  in  their  houses.  Women  were 
tied  to  stakes  within  the  sea  mark  at  low  water;  and 
so  left  to  be  drowned  when  the  tide  returned. 
"  Subjects  who  refused  to  comply  with  the  religious 
2iV\6.  political  maxims  of  the  court,  were  hunted  like 
wild  beasts  on  the  mountains.  Hundreds  after  being 
put  to  the  torture  suffered  martyrdom  ;  many  retired 
from  their  native  country,  now  the  scene  of  perse- 
cution, to  a  voluntary  exile  in  the  wilds  of  Ireland. 
Others,  after  being  scourged,  maimed,  and  exposed 
to  all  the  indignities  and  insults,  to  which  male- 
factors are  doomed,  w^ere  transported  as  slaves  to 
Jamaica  and  the  American  plantations."* 

What  an  excellent  companion  a  short  history  of 
the  above  transactions  would   make  to  Porcupine's 

♦  See  a  work,  entitled,  "  Political  fituatlon  of  the  Scots,  xS:c»'* 


(     75     ) 

Bloody  Buoy  ;  more  especialy  as  they  were  done  under 
a  regular  and  energetic  Government ;  and  by  the  com^ 
mand  of  one  of  the  "  Lord's  anointed!" 

The  jealousy  of  the  old  French  Government  was 
sufficiently  displayed  in  its  tyrannical  police ;  its 
CofFee-House  spies;  its  Bastile,  and  other  State- 
Prisons;  together  with  its  infernal  Letfres  de  Cachet, 
Though  from  political  enmity  to  Britain,  the  Go- 
vernment assisted  the  Americans  in  procuring  their 
independence ;  yet  they  would  not  permit  the  Ameri- 
can Constitutions  to  be  published  in  France.  Not 
many  years  before  the  Revolution,  Louis  the  XVI. 
prohibite'd  all  English  newspapers  from  entering  his 
dominions.  Notwithstanding  all  this  jealousy;  not- 
withstanding these  terrible  obstacles  which  opinion 
had  to  encounter;  we  have  seen  other  opinions  pre- 
vail ;  we  have  seen  that  strongly  fortified  Govern- 
ment overthrown. 

At  an  early  period  of  the  history  of  this  country, 
attempts  were  made  by  the  British  Government  to 
check  the  free  publication  of  opinion.  In  1734, 
John  Peter  Zenger,  printer  in  New- York,  was  pro- 
secuted at  the  instance  of  the  Attorney  General  for 
the  Province,  on  a  charge  of  printing  Seditious  Li- 
bels in  his  newspaper.  He  was  indeed  finally  clear- 
ed by  a  patriotic  jury  of  his  fellow-citizens;  but  for 
this  the  Government  deserved  no  thanks.  The/'' 
did  whatever  wafe  in  their  power,  both  to  condemn 
him,  and  prevent  him  from  again  exercising  his  pro- 
fession. From  that  time,  down  to  the  period  of  the 
Revolution,  every  method  was  tried  which  was  in 
the  power  of  the  British  King  and  his  Governors, 
to  suppress  that  spirit  of  liberty  and  independence 
which  at  last  was  so  gloriously  triumphant. 

Since  George  the  Third  ascended  the  British 
throne,  the  most  pointed  enmity  to  the  Liberty  of 
the  Press  has  been  displayed  under  every  admini«- 

K 


(     74     ) 

tration.  The  trial  of  Mr.  Wilks,  author  af  the 
North  Briton,  and  of  the  publisher  of  the  elegant 
Letters  of  Junius,  are  sufficiently  notorious.  The 
Proclamation  of  the  8th  May,  1792  against  Sedi- 
tious writmgs;  and  the  trial  of  Thomas  Paine  which 
followed  soon  after,  all  only  served  as  so  many  ad- 
vertisements for  the  sale  of  the  Rights  of  Man. 
Thousands  of  people  read  the  celebrated  political 
writings  of  this  man;  who,  had  it  not  been  for  the 
Proclamation  and  trial,  would  in  all  probability, 
forever  remained  ignorant  of  the  existence  of  the  au- 
thor, and  his  works.  Andy  thus  it  will  ever  be, 
when  means  like  these  are  taken  to  suppress  and 
silence  arguments  founded  on  reason  and  Justice. 
Although  the  principles  of  Republicanism  have  not 
yet  triumphed  in  the  British  dominions;  yet,  such 
seeds  are  already  sown,  as  in  all  probability  will  one 
day  yield  a  luxuriant  crop,  productive  of  incalcula- 
ble blessings  to  those  countries  themselves ;  and  con- 
ducive to  the  happiness  and  peace  of  surrounding 
nations.  The  flame  may  be  smothered,  but  the  fire 
is  still  alive.  The  fate  of  an  Hampden  and  a  Sidney; 
a  Muir  and  a  Gerald;  a  Skirving  and  a  Palmer, 
are  not  yet  forgotten.  The  miseries  of  unhappy  Ire- 
land, are  too  deeply  engraven  to  be  obhterateds 
they  are  recorded  in  tears  and  in  blood.  May  the 
example  of  their  oppressors  never  serve  as  a  prece- 
dent to  the  oppressed,  when  the  days  of  retribution 
arrive ! 

Let  It  not  be  said,  that  the  preceding  relation  of 
historical  facts  have  nothing  to  do  with  the  subject  of 
this  enquiry.  They  have  much  to  do  with  it.  They 
tend  to  prove,  in  the  most  incontrovertible  manner^ 
that  there  is  always  danger  to  be  apprehended  from 
Government  interfering  in  the  direction  of  public 
opinion.  They  also  prove  the  omnipotence  ot  opin- 
ion over  the  most  energetic  government  that  ca» 


(     75     ) 

exist.  They  prove  that  the  means  are  Insufficient 
to  the  end;  when  governments  put  in  practice  that 
authority  which  they  so  freqently  wish  to  usurp. 

The  mference  then  is  plain.     No  human  power 
can  prevent  the  progress  of  opinion.     To  the  ope- 
ration of  this  all  powerful  principle,  in  conjunction 
with  the  Liberty  of  the  Press,  the  people  of 
the  United  States  are  as  much  indebted  as  to  their 
swords  for  their  liberty  and  independence.     Had 
the   right  of  speaking,  writing,  and  printing  been 
prohibited,  the  advantages  of  a  change  of  situation 
could  never  have  been  made  sufficiently  apparent. 
It  is  true,  oppression  speaks  in  the  most   forcible 
language  to  the  feelings  of  mankind.     But,  I'tfecl- 
vin-  instead  of  reason  is  to  govern  our  actions,  they 
will  be  frequently  erroneous  and  unjust.     In    this 
particular  instance,  if  the  passions  alone  had  been 
the  pilot  of  public  exertion,    it  is  to  be  feared,  the 
final  result  would  have  been  very  different.     The 
opposition  to  British  usurpation  was  however  begun 
upon  principles  of  justice  and  common  sense;  and 
public  opinion  being  allowed  to  have  free  operation, 
the  result  was  worthy  of  the  cause. 


CHAP.  X. 


General  reasdnhigs  from  the  foregoing  premises. — 
Conclusion. 

XF  there  be  any  thing  truly  valuable  in  the  enjoy-^ 
ment  of  liberty,  that  unrestrained  Freedom^  of 
Speech  and  Press  contended  for  in  the  foregoing 
pages,  must  be  amongst  the  first  of  its  advantages. 
Compare  the  situation  of  mankind  previous  to  the 
art    of  printing   being   discovered.     Contrast   the 


{     76     ) 

knowledge  and  information  so  generally  ditTused 
among  the  people  now,  with  that  almost  universal 
ignorance  which  prevailed  in  ancient  times.  Con- 
template the  valuable  discoveries  in  every  art  and 
science,  and  compare  them  with  the  crude  and 
undigested  theories  of  the  dark  ages.  If  after  having 
considered  these  things,  you  can  prefer  ancient^ 
habits,  customs  or  ideas  ;  then  indeed,  printing  has 
been  injurious,  and  we  ought  to  wish  for  the  return 
of  the  days  of  ignorance  and  superstition.  But,  if 
we  draw  a  different  conclusion,  we  shall  most 
certainly  prefer  the  present  times,  with  all  their  yet 
imperfections,  to  those  when  master  and  slavCy 
(or  ^vhat  amounted  to  the  same  thing)  lord  and  vassal 
were  the  only  distinguishing  appellations  among  the 
human  race.  Those  chains  of  feudal  tyranny  have 
been  destroyed  in  most  European  countries,  and 
the  people  are  gradually  rising  to  that  situation 
which  nature  seems  to  have  designed  them  to 
occupy.  That  the  last  of  these  is  entirely  owing  to 
the  diffusion  of  knowledge  and  mformation,  is  suf- 
ficiently evident  from  comparing  the  state  of  society 
in  those  countries  where  knowledge  has  made  little 
or  no  advances,  with  that  of  those  where  arts  and 
science  have  be-en  cultivated. 

No  people  of  any  country  have  experienced  the 
happy  effects  of  a  free  discussion  on  political  sub- 
jects, more  than  the  people  of  the  United  States. 
It  is  their  interest  to  guard  this  important  privilege 
with  the  utmost  vigilance  and  care.  It  will  he  seen 
from  the  reasonings  that  have  been  adduced  ;  that 
being  an  inherent  right,  and  of  a  nature  not  to  be 
delegated  j  it  must  of  course  always  continue  with 
the  people.  It  will  also  appear,  that  this  right  is 
guarantee'd  to  them  by  the  Constitution  of  their 
Government,  and  that  while  their  legislators  are 
allowed  a  perfect  freedom  of  debate,  without  being 


(     -7     ) 

called  to  ^iccount ;  it  is  absurd  to  suppose  the  people, 
divested  of  that  which  their  public  agents  enjoy. 

All  the  opponents  of  the  Liberty  of  the  Press, 
have  sheltered  themselves  behind  the  specious  veil 
of  preserving  the  public  peace.  They  say,  licen- 
..tiousness  must  be  suppressed.  Dangerous  opinions 
in  politics  and  religion  must  be  guarded  against ; 
otherwise  the  social  order  of  society  will  be  endan- 
gered. What,  it  may  be  asked,  would  have  been 
tne  situation  of  mankind  at  this  moment,  had  the 
subjects  of  religion  and  pohtics  never  been  inves- 
tigated? Orthodox  and  Hetrodox  are  words  of  very 
doubtful  meaning.  What  is  orthodox  at  Constan- 
tinople, is  hetrodox  at  Rome,  and  what  is  deemed 
sacred  and  indisputable  by  the  conclave,  is  termed 
superstition  at  Geneva.  As  it  is  in  respect  to  religion, 
so  is  it  with  politics.  Those  who  are  in  the  admi-, 
liistratipn  of  Government,  will  always  defend  its 
principles,  and  its  actions  -,  whether  it  be  that  of  a 
Turkish  Bashaw,  or  a  Prime  Minister  of  England. 
Investigation  is  equally  dreaded  by  both.  Both  are 
sufficiently  aware  that  many  imperfections  exist  in 
their  systems  of  Government,  and  that  many  abuses 
j^re  committed  under  them.  It  is  however  to  be  hop- 
tfd,  that  the  officers  of  Government  on  this  side  of  the 
Atlantic  will  not  again^  follow  such  pernicious  exam- 
ples. 

The  victory  over  British  despotism  by  the  people 
of  the  United  States,  was  certainly  a  great  and 
glorious  event.  At  the  expence  of  much  blood  and 
treasure  they  acquired  the  right  of  independent 
legislation  -,  and  of  forming  a  Government  of  their 
own  choice.  What  the  people  .have  made,  they 
may  surely  mend.  The  State  and  Federal  Govern- 
ments of  America  have  many  exctellencies.  ^  Per- 
fiaps  no  country  can  boast,  with  justice,  of  enjoying 
an  equal  degree  of  liberty.     Does  4  hQ.W^ver  tpllow. 


{     78     ) 

that  the  Federal  Constitution  is  the  best  that  can  be 
devised?  Arc  there  no  faults  in  this  instrument 
uhich  it  might  be  possible  to  remover  Is  it  the 
climax  of  all  perfection  ?  Its  warmest  supporters 
will  not  be  hardy  enough  to  answer  in  the  affirma- 
tive. A  bare  supposition  of  its  unalterable  perfec- 
tion, were  it  for  a  moment  admitted,  would  prove 
too  much.  It  would  be  asserting  that  mankind  had 
now  seen  and  examined  the  whole  circle  of  political 
science.  If  this  were  the  case,  it  ought  to  stop  all 
enquiry  and  speculation ;  and  the  press  ought  no 
longer  to  investigate  political  subjects.  If,  however, 
it  be  admitted,  that  improvement  may  yet  be  made  i 
why  check,  by  restraining  laws,  the  free  operation 
of  opinion,  either  with  respect  to  principles  or  men? 
It  ought  to  be  always  remembered,  that  MAN  is 
^  perfec table,  but  not  a  perfect  animal.  Me  has' 
interwoven  in  his  nature,  a  principle  of  infinite 
advancement.  He  is  capable  of  going  on  from 
improvement  to  improvement ;  but  never  destined 
to  arrive  at  the  end  of  his  intcllectaal  labours.  If 
there  was  any  fixed  point,  at  which  the  improve- 
ment of  man  could  stop,  then  indeed  there  would 
be  an  end  to  his  researches  ;  and  investigation  ought 
then  to  cease.  That  continual  activity  of  mind 
W'hich  leads  men  on  to  investigate  the  circle  of  the 
arts  and  sciences  with  unceasing  ardour,  and  which 
is  communicated  like  our  existence  from  one  gene- 
ration to  another ;  all  this  would  then  be  of  no  use. 
Could  we  suppose  this  barely  possible  ;  mankind 
so  far  from  being  made  happy,  would  be  deprived 
of  the  most  valuable  pleasures  of  which  their  nature 
is  capable.  They  would  be  deprived  of  the  contem- 
plation of  objects  and  designs  conducive  to  the 
benefit  of  the  species.  If  this  reasoning  be  well 
'founded  it  will  naturally  follow,  that  no  limits  can 
be  assigned  to  our  researches.     Individuals  die,  but 


(     79     ) 

the  species  is  im-mortal  ;  and  as  the  species,  so  are 
their  improvements  illimitable.  How  absurd  then 
is  it  for  people  to  talk  of  prescribing  bounds  to  the 
progress  of  opinion,  either  in  politics  or  religion  ? 
In  the  last,  Jesus  Christ  has  said — "  Let  the  tares 
grow  up  with  the  wheat."  Who  then  are  they  who 
will  dare  to  call  men  to  an  account  for  particular 
religious  tenets  ?  It  certainly  belongs  not  to  man,  but 
to  God  ! 

Political  opinions  never  can  be  destructive  of 
social  order,  or  public  tranquility,  if  allowed  a  free 
operation.  The  law  is  at  all  times  sufficiently  ener- 
getic to  punish  disturbers  of  the  public  peace'. 
When  men  are  found  guilty  of  this,  ht  them  be 
punished  ;  it  is  well.  It  is  not  then  punishing 
opinion,  it  is  punishing  actions  injurious  to  the  peace 
of  the  community. 

But  some  have  asserted,  that  the  people  may 
know  too  much.  That  there  are  certain  things  they 
ought  not  to  be  acquainted  with,  even  though  true. 
That  in  some  cases  our  enquiries  may  go  too  far ; 
and,  that  some  things  ought  always  to  be  concealed. 

If  truth  can  be  in  any  case  injurious  to  the  inte- 
rests of  the  community ;  these  objections  might  be 
allowed  some  weight.  It  however  yet  remains  to 
be  proved,  that  truth  can  fever  be  injurious.  All 
enquiries  are  supposed  to  have  truth  for  their  object. 
Let  then  those  noble  sentiments  of  Dr.  Conyers 
Middleton,  in  the  preface  to  his  free  enquiry  be 
adopted  by  every  enquirer  after  truth. 

"  In  enquiries,  therefore,  whenever  I  perceive 
any  glimmering  of  truth  before  me,  I  readily  pursue, 
and  endeavour  to  trace  it  to  its  source,  without  any 
reserve  Or  caution  of  pushing  too  far,  or  opening  too 
great  a  glare  to  the  public.  I  look  upon  the  disco- 
very of  any  thing  zvhich  is  true,  as  a  valuable 
acquisition  to  society,,  which  cannot  hurt  or  obstruct 


(     80     ) 

the  good  effect  of  any  other  truth  whatsoever ;  for 
they  all  partake  of  one  common  essence,  and  neces- 
sarily coincide  with  each  other  ;  and  like  the  drops 
of  rain  which  fall  separately  into  the  river,  mix 
themselves  at  once  with  the  stream,  and  strengthen 
the  general  current." 

Setting  aside  the  idea  of  the  perfect ahiliiy  of  man 
for  a  moment ;  still  there  are  arguments  sufficient 
to  support  the  necessity  and  justice  of  an  unres- 
trained Liberty  of  the  Press. 

It  is  generally  allowed,  that  the  science  of  Go- 
vernment is  not  as  yet  sufficiently  understood.  But 
will  it  ever  be  better  known,  if  it  is  not  allowed  to 
be  investigated  ?  The  same  form  of  Government  has 
existed  in  China  for  two  or  three  thousand  years. 
The  reason  of  this  is  the  ignorance  of  the  people. 
Notwithstanding  the  praises  bestowed  upon  it  by  the 
Abbe  Raynal  and  other  writers;  it  is  nothing  more 
than  a  detestable  system  of  legal  tyranny.  Such  will 
all  Governments  become,  if  they  are  suffered  to 
grow  independent  of  public  censure  or  applause. 
Abuses  become. sanctioned  by  time,  and  in  propor- 
tion to  their  age,  they  acquire  strength.  The  safest 
way  to  destroy  them,  is  to  attack  them  when  young. 
It  will  be  attended  withwthe  greatest  safety  both  to 
Government,  and  the  peace  of  the  community. 
Notwithstanding  all  the  care  of  the  people  in  dele- 
gating powder,  still  many  things  will  afterwards  be 
found  wanting  \  or  improvements  of  some  kind  or 
other  necessary  to  be  made.  Let  then  public 
discussion  be  unrestrained.  The  ideas  of  the  first 
proposer  may  be  improved  on  by  succeeding  writers, 
and  from  collision  of  sentirnent,  truth  will  ultimately 
be  produced. 

Sedition  laws  are  less  intended  for  the  mainte- 
nance of  public  tranquihty;  than  for  the  defence  of 
certain  individuals.  Nothingisan  be  more  pernicious^ 


(     81      ) 

nothing  more  dangerous.  What  Individual  Is  of  that 
vast  importance  to  society,  that  he  should  have  a 
particular  clause  in  the  criminal  code  of  the  country, 
for  his  particular  safety.  Are  not  the  lau^s  already 
sufficiently  povi^erful  to  punish  every  offence?  If  they 
are  not,  let  them  be  made  so;  but  never  let  that 
great  principle  of  all  lav^  be  violated : — '^  That  of 
operating  equally  upon  all,  ivhether  it  protects  or 
punishes^  But  Sedition  laws  violate  this  maxim. 
They  prescribe  certain  modes  of  punishment,  for 
certain  supposed  crimes,  wherein  a  chief  magistrate's 
conduct  has  been  arraigned.  Every  public  officer 
is  entrusted  with  power  for  the  good  of  the  commu- 
nity. If  so,  then  his  actions  ought  to  be  w^atched ; 
and  if  they  over-leap  the  bounds  of  the  Constitution, 
the  public  ought  to  know  it.  But  how  shall  this 
be  known  if  public  opinion  is  fettered?  Besides,  it 
is  the  interest  of  the  magistrates  and  public  function- 
aries themselves,  to  know  the  state  of  public  opinion. 
It  will  in  many  cases  serve  as  a  guide  to  their  deter- 
minations. It  will  enable  them  to  distinguish  their 
friends  from  their  enemies.  But  few  will  the  ene- 
mies of  that  government  be,  whose  actions  are  di- 
rected by  the  rules  of  justice  and  the  Constitution ; 
and  the  tenor  of  whose  conduct  has  always  been 
expressive  of  the  sincerest  wishes  for  the  public  wel- 
fare. In  all  investigations  of  a  public  nature,  per- 
sonal invective  ought,  in  justice,  to  be  avoided.  It 
has,  however,  unfortunately  happened,  that  for 
some  years  past,  a  more  frequent  resort  has  been 
had  by  writers  of  all  parties,  to  personal  jnvective 
and  abuse,  than  was  either  necessary  or  just.  If 
men  diffiir  in  opinion,  surely  the  common  rules  of 
politeness  ought  not  therefore  to  be  thrown  aside. 
In  all  cases,  where  difference  of  opinion  exists,  the 
investigation  of  truth  ought  to  be  the  only  object. 
Personal  dislike  to  ^  individual,  will  never  ope- 


(82) 

rate  upon  a  great  mind.  It  ought  certainly  never  to 
have  a  place  in  public  discussions;  neither  ought 
extraneous  circumstances  v^'ith  which  the  public 
have  no  concern,  ever  to  be  brought  into  view.  A 
practice  of  an  oposite  kind^  so  far  from  convincing, 
will  tend  to  irritate,  and  fix  error  deeper  in  the  mind. 
Jn .  order  to  convince,  it  is  necessary  to  make  it  ap- 
pear that  truth,  and  not  personal  revenge,  is  yt)ur 
object. 

But  even  should  this  impropriety  sometimes  hap- 
pen, it  ought  never  to  be  adduced  as  a  proof  of  th(5 
licentiousness  of  the  Press;  nor  used  as  an  argument 
for  the  necessity  of  infringing  its  Liberty.  It  arises 
frcm  the  remains  of  that  terror  which  w^as  insepara- 
ble from  the  restrictions  under  which  the  Press  la- 
boured, for  a  long  period  after  the  discovery  of  prin- 
ting. It  is  also  a  consequence  of  that  fear  which  too 
often  pervades  the  middle  and  lower  class  of  man- 
kind ;  of  giving  offence  to  some  rich  individual,  or 
great  man  in  authority.  Let  such,  if  investigating 
public  affairs,  boldly  speak  what  appears  to  them  to 
be  true.  Let  falsehood  never  stain  the  political 
page;  and  let  great  men  never  be  offended  at  li/ile 
men  for  freedom  of  political  investigation.  Not- 
withstanding all  that  has  been  said  to  the  contrary, 
the  poor  man  has  as  much  at  stake,  and  is  as  much 
interested  in  the  stability  of  government,  as  the 
richest  man  in  the  community.  And  if  he  thinks 
that  any  observations  of  his  may  be  of  advantage  to 
his  fellow-citizens,  he  has  an  equal  right  to  commu- 
nicate them.  It  is  of  no  consequence  to  enquire  who 
writes  a  paper  or  a  pamphlet,  where  principles  and 
not  individuals  are  the  subjects  of  investigation.  The 
only  reasonable  enquiry  is,  are  the  principles  contend- 
ed for  just.?  If  they  are,  let  them  have  their  due 
weight ;  if  otherwise,  they  will  iiveet  with  their  merited 
contempt.     In  all  cases,  however,  where  specific  or 


(     83     ) 

general  charges  arc  exhibited  against  an  intllvldual, 
or  individuals  j  the  persons  name  ought  to  he  affixed 
to  the  publication.  In  this  case,  wilful  calumny  and 
abuse  would  never  dare  to  make  their  appearance. 
He  who  had  been  once  convicted  of  publishing  a 
malicious  falsehood,  would  forever  after  be  deprived 
of  the  means  of  giving  currency  to  his  calumnies. 
Let  not  Government  interfere.  The  laws  of  society, 
as  before  observed,  are  fully  sufficient  to  the  purpose. 

If  newspapers,  and  other  publications,  have  lately 
teemed  with  misrepresentation,  or  wuth  undeserved 
abuse  of  private  or  public  character  :  If  calumnies 
and  invective  dressed  up  in  the  language  of  billings- 
gate have  been  profusely  dealt  abroad  instead  of  ar- 
gument ;  what  is  to  be  done  ?  Docs  it  follow  that  we 
Ought  to  be  deprived  of  LIBERTY  because  it  may 
be,  or  has  been  %bused.^  Will  justice  not  rather 
say,  let  misrepresentation  be  exposed  by  the  force 
of  truth.  Let  characters  who  have  been  unjustly 
accused,  vindicate  themselves  by  pointing  out  the 
falsehood  of  the  charges  ;  and  let  foul  language  be 
treated  w^th  that  contempt  it  so  justly  merits.  In. 
no  case  zvhatever  use  coejxive  ineasmrs.  Truth  is  at 
all  times  sufficiently  pow^erful.  Coercion  may  sile?ice, 
but  it  never  can  convince. 

It  is  the  duty  of  both  Government  and  people  to 
act  justly.  Openness,  sincerity,  and  candour, 
should  characterise  all  their  trans actijons.  As  men 
are  so  liable  to  error  and  mistake,  they  should  be 
alike  open  to  reason  and  conviction.  Mankind 
being  in  a  state  of  progressional  improvement;  they 
should  avoid  throwing  any  obstacles  in  its  way. 
In  a  free  and  unrestrained  Liberty  of  Speech  and 
Press,  many  errors  will  undoubtedly  bt  brought  be- 
fore the  public  eye  ;  but,  even  these  will  not  be 
without  their  use.  When  detected  by  accurate 
reasoning,    the    truth   wnll   appear  with  increased 


(     84     ) 

jiistre.  The  only  danger  to  be  apprehended.  Is 
from  investigation  being  fettered^  and  error  allowed 
to  become  rooted  in  the  mind. 

Let  the  whi'g  and  tory,  the  royalist  and  aristocrate, 
the  republican  and  democrat,  or  by  whatever  other 
name  the  partizans  of  political  parties  are  desig- 
nated; let  them,  I  say,  be  allowed  to  express  their 
opinions,  whether  by  speech  or  press,  with  the  same 
unconstrained  freedom  with  which  men  of  science 
discuss  their  subjects  of  investigation.  No  more 
danger  will  result  from  the  one  discussion,  than 
arises  from  the  other. 

An  unlimited  freedom  in  the  exercise  of  religious 

opinions  has  been  recognized  in  the  United  States. 

The    good   effects  of   this  are    sufficiently  visible. 

We  here  see  none  of  that  superstitious  enmity,  and 

uncharitable  fanaticism  of  one  denomination  against 

another,    which  is  so  prevalent   in  all    European 

countries  where   established  relii^ions  exist.     This 

•      -I 
very  circumstance,  which  we  now  see  realized,  was 

at  no  very  remote  period,  deemed  by   many  well 

informed  men  to  be  utterly  impracticable.     Give 

UNTO  ALL  OPINIONS  THE  SAME  FREEDOM, 
AND  THE  SAME  EFFECTS  WILL'  FOLLOW. 


FINIS. 


ERRATA 

Page   18  line  6  &  7  for  Empyrean — read,  Empyrzeum. 

33  —    3  for  Triennila — read.  Triennial. 

4  for  Septlennial — read,   Septennial, 
— —  34  —    9  (fron^  the  bottom)  for  held  his  hands — read,   held  up 
his  hands. 

35  —    ^  ^^^  Grandenston — read,  Gardenston. 

37  — 12  foi  upon  that  Majesty's — read,  his  Majesty's;  also 

in  the  following  line,  for  his  high— read^  that  high. 


14  DAY  USE 

RETURN  TO  DESK  FROM  WHICH  BORROWED 

LOAN  DEPT. 

This  book  is  due  on  the  last  date  stamped  below, 
or  on  the  date  to  which  renewed.  Renewals  only: 

Tel.  No.  642-3405 
Renewals  may  be  made  4  days  prior  to  date  due. 
Renewed  books  are  subject  to  immediate  recalL 


garaifl  iaiQ^?3-5i>iiss 


^-^ia     OCT  16*16 


m^ 


11987 


l^iJTD.DlSC.Mfl|??6  '87 


LD2lA-40m-3,'72 
(Qll78Sl0)476-A-32 


General  Library 

University  of  California 

Berkeley 


:  -^ 


GWfWt 


-a??" 


M*^1520 


THE  UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  UBRARY 


